• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Writing a Thriller

Sort by date Sort by votes
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Never show the character / thing that's supposed to scare the audience, suspense is what Hitchcock built his films on. But we are in a new age when you have to be more creative, especially that most people are desensortised to scary / bloody stuff. Seriously though, don't necessarily study directors like Hitchcock because I'v met too many film makers who get heavy inspiration from him and all their work looks the same. Most importantly, what scares you / freaks you out?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Joshua Lloyd said:
Never show the character / thing that's supposed to scare the audience, suspense is what Hitchcock built his films on. But we are in a new age when you have to be more creative, especially that most people are desensortised to scary / bloody stuff. Seriously though, don't necessarily study directors like Hitchcock because I'v met too many film makers who get heavy inspiration from him and all their work looks the same. Most importantly, what scares you / freaks you out?
Click to expand...

The people to whom you refer are mimics. Mimics lack talent, style, and a Voice.

Talented people study other talented people 'e work and learn, without be overwhelmed by their obvious superiority, because their not obviously inferior.

Hitchcock NEVER relies on gore.You comment is non-sequiter.

Do you really think the crap today is more creative? How so? How is CGI and F/X more creative then good stories, solid characters, and a well placed camera?

Audience's are de-sensitized to garbage, maybe. But they still appreciate Art.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Man I'm so misunderstood. At least I have different opinions.
What you have to understand is that film makers today are at an immediate disadvantage because everything has been done before. Hitchcock has the freedom to do something and not have it critised as a "Mimic"or unoriginal. Surely you could have worked out what I mean't by more creative, in the way we must attempt to think of ideas that are near unique. None of us can help being born at a a later time. I know some CGI is crap, but then again I've learnt that people who say stuff like that are people who want to seem like an intelligent film maker. I've also met people who express their love for Kubrick just to seem like a true film lover. I NEVER said Hitchcock relies on gore... I was actually praising him for for not creating blood baths.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Too many indie thrillers nowadays don't have big enough stories. Make it BIG. If it's not big enough of a crime situation to be on the front page of the newspapers for a month, than it's probably not big enough.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
Too many indie thrillers nowadays don't have big enough stories. Make it BIG. If it's not big enough of a crime situation to be on the front page of the newspapers for a month, than it's probably not big enough.
Click to expand...
IDK if Chernobyl Diaries with a $1m budget would be considered a horror thriller due to all the literal running around, but it seemed more time filler than thriller.

A goog search for independent film thriller might scare up a few interesting titles.
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?genres=thriller&keywords=independent-film&sort=user_rating
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?genres=thriller&keywords=independent-film&sort=moviemeter,asc
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
geckopelli said:
Hitchcock NEVER relies on gore...How is CGI and F/X more creative then good stories, solid characters, and a well placed camera?
Click to expand...

Hitchcock frequently relied on gore! What made him such an inventive and creative filmmaker was that he manipulated his audiences into generating the gore from their imagination, rather than being boringly obvious and just presenting visual images of gore.

Joshua Lloyd said:
I NEVER said Hitchcock relies on gore... I was actually praising him for for not creating blood baths.
Click to expand...

Yet ironically one of the most famous scenes in film history is where Hitchcock does exactly that, blood in a bath!

Yes, the quality of the script is incredibly important, so is the acting and the camera work. But, if you're going to focus your attention on what the camera "sees" then you're never going to make a thriller which is ... well thrilling! There are many filmmakers on this site and in the lo/no budget film sector in general who really must get away from this narrow and highly restrictive view of film being a visual medium. This is true of all genres of filmmaking but even more true of the thriller and horror genres. There is no getting away from the fact that unless you seriously consider and incorporate sound design in the script and throughout the filmmaking phases then you can never make a good thriller! Hitchcock was one of those who contributed to this film truism and it's more true today than it's ever been!

G
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
Too many indie thrillers nowadays don't have big enough stories. Make it BIG. If it's not big enough of a crime situation to be on the front page of the newspapers for a month, than it's probably not big enough.
Click to expand...

You sound exactly like my manager. :yes:

Personally, if I have to sit through another insipid "end-of-the-world" thriller, I think I'd rather the world just end and get it over with. But you are 100% right, harmonica. Most "attention-span-of-a-chimpanzee" Americans want big, bigger, biggest!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't think it has to do with attention spans more so than the standards have been set higher. Take Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt for example. In 1943, this movie was big, and a hit. It's still on the IMDBs top 250 movies of all time. But if it came out today as an indie film, it would be most likely instantly forgotten, with a plot that no one would be blown away by.

Unfortunately we have to keep up with the standards and the times, and try to be the next big thriller. Not cause of low attention spans I don't think, but because since so many thrillers have topped each other over the decades, it's just hard to be blown away anymore.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Why do we have to be "blown away" every time?!! WTF happened to just listening to a story? Audiences today are like f**king crackheads -- they need a little more each time to reach the same high. It's sad and depressing.

And, trust me, if you'd been around the past four decades, you'd understand just how short our attention spans have become.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
2001 Productions said:
Why do we have to be "blown away" every time?!! WTF happened to just listening to a story? Audiences today are like f**king crackheads -- they need a little more each time to reach the same high. It's sad and depressing.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. What you have said does not just apply to film audiences of today but has ALWAYS existed in film, it's not a new phenomena but a fact of filmmaking. Very early films just had say an unedited shot of a train travelling towards the camera, some early audiences ran screaming from the theatre thinking the train was going to continue through the screen and hit them. Play that same footage to an audience in the 1920s and the audience would still run out of the theatre but out of boredom rather than fear! Film has always been a technological and artistic arms race with audiences who become accustomed to film making tricks to involve them in a sense of realism. Today's audiences are starting to get HFR 3D and Dolby Atmos, just as audiences in the 1920s got more intelligent editing and sync sound, audiences of the 1930s got artistic Foley, better visual FX, juxtaposed editing techniques, Technicolor and so on throughout the eras of filmmaking.

You might feel this is "sad and depressing" but it's not, it's effectively the status quo because it's a filmmaking fact you have to deal with, just as every other filmmaker in history has had to!

G
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You're right, APE, but I'm not missing the point. My point is that not all of us need that bigger hit every time out. But you and harmonica are both correct that, by and large, audiences have grown impatient. Story and character are suffering as a result, IMO, except in some independent films, which often wind up doing poorly in theaters. Few people seem interested in thinking anymore -- not just about movies, but in general. That is what depresses me.

The limited time I've spent in Europe has made me feel like it isn't quite so bad there, but we Americans are, on the whole, becoming a shallow and narcissistic lot.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think what makes a thriller "thrilling" are two things: The build-up and the surprise. You want your audience to feel a looming disaster but you don't want them to know what that is. It creates anxiety akin to how we feel today about our own futures. And of course, you always want to surprise your audience because the mind constantly seeks new stimulation.

But you know, to really make a movie thrilling, you should experiment with multi-genre films.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There's a couple things I like in a thriller

1. Give it something Psychological...but be original
2. Keep people guessing...make them think
3. Have great build up...give them something to keep the tension high
4. Don't be cliche. :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You know what's a really good example of a thriller is Silence of the Lambs. It doesn't have a lot of fast paced action to keep audiences in the seats but at the same time, it was a huge hit, won Oscars, and most of my generation today was entertained by it, and did not get bored. A script like that could be made on a microbudget and would not require a lot. You don't need big budget effects, just gripping storytelling that would hold up to today's audience.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Silence of the Lambs. It doesn't have a lot of fast paced action to keep audiences in the seats but at the same time, it was a huge hit, won Oscars, and most of my generation today was entertained by it, and did not get bored. A script like that could be made on a microbudget and would not require a lot. You don't need big budget effects, just gripping storytelling that would hold up to today's audience.
Click to expand...

And really good actors :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top