whats your preferred type of horror?

[Danny]

So thats the big 3 i could easily surmise, of course you can have ones the combines the two, like event horizon being supernatural sci-fi for example but i doubt a niche subgenre blend will be the one you go for most in terms of the whole horror genre, so whats your favourite and why? Personally i dislike sci-fi and to a lesser extent 'realistic' because i dislike gore, it's always felt like an immature, over the top compensation for working for scares if you get what i mean. not to slight the films or the tastes of its fans, this is about personal tastes here. Doesn't mean i dislike goery movies, who dont love brain dead? but it just feels almost immature to me when a supernatural horror can utilise more subtlety and 'corner of your eye' half seen things to scare you. Plus in supernatural horror there is no straight defence to whats coming after you- japanese and korean ghost story horror is a good example of this, flicks like pulse, ring and ju-on have an entity that has no true defence against and there less in your face scares seem much more, well, scary for there effort. What about you? *im guessing realistic/ gorey sci-fi will be the winner here, lets watch.

[Legion2213]

I'm not really a horror fan. I'd rather watch stuff like "Jacobs Ladder", "Session 9" and the like than any kind of monster/ghost/slasher sort of stuff (oh, and Event Horrizon is a pretty bloody great film IMO).

[Doc]

No all of the above! DAMN IT! Cant' choose. :-X I like each type pretty much equally, but if I had to really choose probably supernatural since, when I think horror films that is the first that comes to mind. By, supernatural you mean Micheal Myers, Jason, and Freddy right? There was always a supernatural element to them. Or is the supernatural option more like Pazuzu/Regan from Exorcist, and ghosts? Wait, do zombies count in this category? Confused now!

[blind2d]

Not the best poll, but better than I could do! Ahem, Pazuzu rocks, but Cthulhu could probably kick his ass... What were we talking about? Oh! I chose Sci-Fi. Just because.

[bassman]

To hard to choose, really. There's good and bad in all three categories, but I can't really choose one in particular. If anything, I would probably have to go with something in the realm of "psychological horror". I suppose that could fit under "realistic"?

[JDFP]

Great thread, Hells. I'm with Bass, pyschological horror all the way. Take example three of my most favorite horror films -- "The Day After", "Day of the Dead", and "Blair Witch Project". In "Day After" you're threatened by a nuclear war/holocaust. You can't run away. You can't escape (well, maybe if you have an underground bunker, but you'll probably still die from radiation and/or starvation anyway). You have no choice but to be confronted by the situation. The same goes with "Day" -- you can't run away from zombies. They're everywhere. And with "The Blair Witch Project" you're lost, you can't escape because you don't know which way to run as you're lost in the woods and you don't know the terrain. Sure, you can keep running and running... but how do you know you won't just end up getting more lost in the long run? Just the thought of having to be confronted by an external situation for which you have NO control over and NO way to flee is terrifying to me. WIth something like a psychopath/slasher film you could just get in your car (not that it would start up though, being in a slasher film they NEVER do) and go away. I'd be the guy with the group outside the creepy house who survives by leaving all their stupid asses and at the credits of the film you'd see me walking down a road somewhere with a case of beer because I wasn't stupid enough to follow the group. Nuclear war, being completely lost in the woods, or zombies? Not so much of a choice in the matter. j.p.

[krakenslayer]

I'm not so much a fan of ghosts and the supernatural in film, because I've never really seen it handled well. The characters' reactions are always totally unbelievable. The arc always goes like this: people are initially disbelieving, then it gets to the point they can no longer doubt it and just get on with dealing with the problem without further issue; there is a whole other phase in-between that is never addressed: the earth-shattering, paradigm-shifting realisation that the supernatural is real. Imagine now, what would go through your mind if you came into contact with a real-life undead vampire. You might be scared, but most importantly there would be a huge and continuing turmoil over you own sanity, as well as the fact that the foundations of your whole reality have suddenly been called into question. This sort of thing is rarely addressed in supernatural films. Characters are either readily credulous of everything, or stubbornly and utterly disbelieving, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.. The closest I have seen is in Dog Soldiers where one of the characters asks: "If THEY'RE real, what ELSE is real?" My favourite genre is probably "realistic" or "sci-fi" because I like my fiction to have some grounding in the reality of my own experience, however tenuous the connection. Not always (I do like fantasy and some supernatural horror), but in general.

[shootemindehead]

@ JDFP, if you liked 'The Day After', you should check out 'Threads'. I saw both when I was younger and the latter film actually game me nightmares!

[JDFP]

@ JDFP, if you liked 'The Day After', you should check out 'Threads'. I saw both when I was younger and the latter film actually game me nightmares! "Threads" is fantastic. I've never been able to find a copy of it here stateside on VHS and/or DVD, but I had a chance to see it in the last few years courtesy of a place on the internet (ahem). It is a very well done film, basically the British 'The Day After'. Of course, there's no Jason Robards or John Lithgow ("This is Lawrence, is anyone out there? Anyone at all?") but it's still highly intense. Extremely vivid and engrossing. And yes, it certainly scared the shit out of me. There's another film from this time-period that has a VERY young Kevin Costner and William Devane and Jane Alexander called "Testament" which is similar in nature. It focuses on a wife (Jane Alexander) with her three children who survive the initial nuclear blast as they lived far enough away from a major city. Day by day, she gets to experience the collapse of her town around her from the fallout of nuclear war and watch her children one by one die from radiation. I recommend following this film up with a light-hearted comedy if/when you see it. I wouldn't mind seeing a more contemporary re-telling of "The Day After" and/or "Threads" or "Testament" for that matter -- if done right. j.p.

[shootemindehead]

Aye. The only version I've seen of 'Threads' is a region 2 box. I'm surprised that nobody picked it up for R1. Although I liked 'The Day After' when I first saw it, I think 'Threads' remains the better effort. Probably because it's more realistic. To me anyway. It's incredibly grim. It's also better because it lacks the "stars" too. It just allows the story to hiy home with a bigger punch if big names aren't on screen. It's a pity the BBC don't make that type of solid drama any more. Excellent writing and for the times well executed viuals too and very uncompromising view of a truly horrific event. Thanks for the tip on 'Testament'. I'd heard the name before, but never checked it out. Might try to...ahem..."aquire" it for later.

[Danny]

dont remember threads but the name sounds familiar, the day after was pretty damn impressive in terms of what they did out in the world- or through use of great set design but it never really grabbed me with the performances, still decent though.

[Mike70]

i went with the "supernatural" option. that, to me, is what horror is really all about. i like my sci-fi to be, well, sci-fi. the "real world" option is one that appeals to me the least. i do like the classic slasher films but real life is full of monsters whose exploits make many of those shown on screen look rather tame.