What happened to all the good horror filmmakers?

[Joseph]

Ran across the article:


paralleluniverse.msn.com/across-the-universe/agent-of-shield/photo-gallery/?photoidx=6>1=28140

Was recently thinking about this after a co-worker told me how much he hated "Devil". I can't remember the last truly badass horror film I've seen.

I agree with the author about the decline of Carpenter's later films. The original "Halloween" remains my favorite movie and anyone who claims that Rob Zombie's remake holds a candle to it will be killed and eaten. But Carpenter hasn't made a decent flick since "Prince of Darkness".

"My Soul to Take" looks promising but so have a lot of other trailers that have proven disappointing.

Maybe I should have went with the wife and kids to see "The Legend of the Guardians" some 3D movie about talking owls. Now that looked truly terrifying.

[micah]

Nice article and very timely. I am in the middle of blogging about what I will, may, and will not do this October. There are a quite a few movies coming out and most of them are getting a pass. There was a brief but telling discussion about M. Night on Twitter a few days back. He's on my personal "No Fly" list, right next to Rob "Should have stuck to making music" Zombie.

The article discusses how disappointing the Hollywood system has been and I couldn't agree more. It's also where I place some of the blame. Hollywood has as its primary goal the desire to make profit, not support things that are new, innovative, or creative. If something has worked in the past, find a way to do it again. If something new comes along and wows the audience, put the elements in a blender, water it down, puree, and pour it into a glass and hand it out again. The result is just that: watered down remakes of old movies, Americanized versions of foreign films that don't equal the originals, or the same ideas retreaded again and again.

Another problem is that we, the horror consuming audience, are optimistic, despite our supposedly dark outlook. I have high hopes for the new Wes Craven movie. The original Saw was amazing so I'll probably see the new one (although I don't know if I'll pay movie theater prices for it). Let Me In is on the list to see as is Paranormal Activity 2 (although the logical part of me says not to). Del Toro doing Lovecraft? I'm all over that.

[sjp]

I don't think the disappointment in directors is limited to just horror. I don't know what it is, but there are quite a few directors from the late 70s/early 80s who showed a profound gift for filmmaking that, for one reason or another, just don't anymore. For instance:

1. George Lucas: Unless you've been living under a rock, you know this. Seriously, what the hell happened? I don't mind the prequels as much as other people do, but something happened to him between Jedi and the movie re-releases in 1997. The only explanation I have is that he feels like his older work is too harsh, and he wants something his kids can enjoy. Robert Rodriguez said that about Spy Kids, and I can't stand those movies. They don't realize that you don't write specifically 'for kids' unless you want to make garbage...you write something intelligent that kids can understand.
2. Ridley Scott: Granted, he may be one of the few on this list that still makes 'good' movies, but compare something like G.I. Jane or Robin Hood to Alien or Blade Runner. There's a real artistry in those earlier films that no amount of speeding up the camera during action scenes can make up for.
3. Wolfgang Petersen: Das Boot and The Neverending Story = classics. Air Force One? Troy? Eh, not so much. That last one also shows that just making a slightly mythical and fantasy-inspired movie doesn't mean it'll necessarily stand out and be different.
4. John Landis: Fared a little better than most, doing good stuff until late in the 80s, but man, the 90s were not kind to him at all. I'd blame the Twilight Zone incident for it, but he still made SOME good movies after that.

Who really knows why these guys' creativity vanished? Did they just run out of good ideas? Studios drove them into projects they didn't like, but needed the money to do? Was their early work really just a fluke? I don't know the real answer, but I think part of it may lie in what I said about George Lucas...somewhere, along the way, they lost an edginess to their work that they either cannot find anymore, or abandoned at the behest of studios or their own personal feelings. Even somebody like Romero, who prides himself on the "rich people and the army suck" type of edginess, loses steam when that's all he ever does, just in different flavors.

Of them all, though, I think Carpenter is the saddest, because I really do think he tries, but just can't seem to capture his previous awesomeness. But, like the article says, it's a slump; horror won't be out forever, it just needs somebody to step in and (humbly) take the reigns.

And I will say this for Saw...they might not be great films, but it is nice to see a slasher franchise last for this long that isn't Freddy, Jason, or Michael, and still manage to be one continuous story. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of people writing themselves into corners and forcing 're-boots' of movie franchises. I mean, come on, even if you have to hire different actors, can't you just keep the continuity going? For Pete's sake, James Bond was supposed to be the same guy over 40 years, and THEY kept the continuity until Craig stepped in, and they can't do it for an undead creature that's less than 30?