51 worst horror clichés

[Peregrin]

brought to you by Dread Central, who know what they are talking about.

I don't agree with all of them - for example, I don't think number 29 really is a cliché - but I think this list could come in handy when writing horror stories, and because this is a community of SF writers I think posting it can be useful.

[Malchus]

*rubs hands in a cliched villainous way* Yes... and I will use some of them for Camping Trip!

Especially the "Uh-oh! Teenagers are bumping uglies!" one--*gets shot by Karen*

[Siege]

I loathe the vast majority of horror movies, and this list is a pretty good indicator of why that is so. Particularly in American horror this pseudo-puritanical 'sex = DIE' mindset, the [insert highschool stereotype here] tropes, and the neverending stream of idiocy and cliches completely ruins the entire experience for me. A good recent example would be the trailer for Jessica Alba's The Eye: I recall sitting in the theater and rolling my eyes five seconds in advance of every "shoulder grab" type 'shock effect' in there, they were that obvious.

For just once, I'd like to see someone with the general level of competence of, say, the writers for Criminal Minds to make a horror movie. They genuinely seem to know how to build up believable yet still completely batshit loco serial killers without resorting to 'degenerate hicksville redneck town of doom with no gaspump' idiocy. Then again, that might just mean the movie ventures into thriller-territory; as far as I can tell to be a horrormovie made in Hollywood the plot has to consist of at least 90% lame and retardedness.

[Dakarne]

I say that there is only one good horror film series; The Omen.

Anything else just sucks.

[Malchus]

For just once, I'd like to see someone with the general level of competence of, say, the writers for Criminal Minds to make a horror movie. They genuinely seem to know how to build up believable yet still completely batshit loco serial killers without resorting to 'degenerate hicksville redneck town of doom with no gaspump' idiocy. Then again, that might just mean the movie ventures into thriller-territory; as far as I can tell to be a horrormovie made in Hollywood the plot has to consist of at least 90% lame and retardedness.

And gratuitous eye candy. Never forget the gratuitous eye candy.

Then again, this is Hollywood, where the concept of ugly would be plain-looking for anyone else.

[Mobius 1]

I have always depised horror movies. Always. From crappy predictable slasher fics to the mind-numbingly stupid torture porn that's the flavor of this decade, it's all crap. What's worse- that sex=death, or that the same villain will return sequel after sequel by goddamn fiat? Neither.

It's that people actually spend money on this shit and enjoy it.

[Peregrin]

From crappy predictable slasher fics to the mind-numbingly stupid torture porn that's the flavor of this decade, it's all crap.

The whole torture horror thing is nothing new (Marquis de Sade, anyone?)... and even though it might not have broken into the mainstream until recently, it's not really "the flavour of the decade" when you look at the numbers. Sure, the big studios are actually making those now but just looking at theatrical premieres there's just as many movies in the other horror subgenres. When looking at the big picture (that is, including direct-to-video movies) the torture flicks are still in the minority.

Not that Sturgeon's Law doesn't apply at full force, though...

the neverending stream of idiocy and cliches completely ruins the entire experience for me

... says a Michael Bay fan.

[Siege]

I'm in no way or shape a "Michael Bay fan". I loathe Armageddon and Pearl Harbour just as much as the next guy. However, I'm also not enough of an elitist prick to not fess up to the fact that I liked The Rock, Bad Boys and Transformers.

As for torture porn not being the currently fashionable thing - I'm sorry, what? In recent years we've seen four Saw movies, two Hostel movies, a Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, and that's just off the top of my head, and you're telling me torture porn is not in flavour? It IS in flavour. Just like crappy Japanese remakes (The Ring,, The Grudge, The Eye, etc.) were before it, teen-slashers were before that (Scream*, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Final Destination) and unstoppable-killer movies were before that (Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street).

Just because there's an occasional Dogsoldiers or The Mist coming out that doesn't follow that mold doesn't mean that it's not still the flavour of the moment.

PS: See what's wrong with all the mainstream movies I've just listed? They're all cliche-riddled crap. Now I'll be the first to admit that action movies tend to be cliche-ridden as well, but at least action movies (A) don't tend to take themselves so damned seriously and (B) don't typically obsess over superficialities. In action movies, the explosions are there to spice up the plot. In mainstream horror, it seems that gore IS the plot. Whatever happened to horror of the Exorcist stripe where gouts of blood weren't the raison d'etre for the entire movie?

* At least the first Scream movie managed to be self-conscious and self-referential enough to be amusing.

[Shroom Man 777]

What is wrong with Armageddon? It was SO awesome! It was patriotic macho bullshit... In Space! It was like, America Versus An Asteroid! Holy shit!


EDIT:

Also, Malchus.

In Camping Trip, fuck that cliche of a non-working cellphone. Have Karen call down the thunder with her Nokia, goddamn it!

Nokias are reeeeaaal nasty. You gotta respect the Japanese. They know the way. Of the samurai!

[Peregrin]

I'm in no way or shape a "Michael Bay fan". I loathe Armageddon and Pearl Harbour just as much as the next guy. However, I'm also not enough of an elitist prick to not fess up to the fact that I liked The Rock, Bad Boys and Transformers.

Okay, I apologize if I made it look like I agreed with the critic consensus that Michael Bay is actually Hitler. I like The Rock too... but it's the only movie of his I've enjoyed all the way through. The others I've seen (both Bad Boys, Armageddon and Transformers) had the occasional cool scene - eg. the highway car chase in Bad Boys 2 - but didn't really gel with me. I think it's how they schizophrenically swing in tone between whimsical and dead serious without finding the same equilibrium The Rock did.

Oh, and with Transformers I paid to see robots fighting, not humans running away from robots fighting. I also don't agree with the screenwriters that robots urinating on people, teenagers talking about masturbation with their parents and grownups arguing with their mothers are the epitome of humour. That said, I admit I might initially have been too harsh on Transformers because it did go out of its way to avoid a few sci-fi clichés.

As for torture porn not being the currently fashionable thing - I'm sorry, what? In recent years we've seen four Saw movies, two Hostel movies, a Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, and that's just off the top of my head, and you're telling me torture porn is not in flavour? It IS in flavour. Just like crappy Japanese remakes (The Ring,, The Grudge, The Eye, etc.) were before it, teen-slashers were before that (Scream*, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Final Destination) and unstoppable-killer movies were before that (Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street).

Just because there's an occasional Dogsoldiers or The Mist coming out that doesn't follow that mold doesn't mean that it's not still the flavour of the moment.

I did admit that torture horror is more popular than it used to be and will probably be remembered as the 2000s equivalent of the 1980s slasher fad, but it's far from all that horror movies today have to offer - not just the occasional Dog Soldiers and The Mist. You also have the 28... Later movies, Rodriguez and Tarantino's Grindhouse project, the Resident Evil filmatizations, remakes of horror movies that aren't torture flicks, The Host, 1408, Cloverfield, Hatchet, [REC], Diary of the Dead, Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, Slither, 30 Days of Night, Skinwalkers, Pan's Labyrinth (okay, that was more of a fantasy flick with horror elements), Bug and The Orphanage. None of those are torture flicks.

PS: See what's wrong with all the mainstream movies I've just listed? They're all cliche-riddled crap. Now I'll be the first to admit that action movies tend to be cliche-ridden as well, but at least action movies (A) don't tend to take themselves so damned seriously and (B) don't typically obsess over superficialities. In action movies, the explosions are there to spice up the plot. In mainstream horror, it seems that gore IS the plot. Whatever happened to horror of the Exorcist stripe where gouts of blood weren't the raison d'etre for the entire movie?

Huh? There's just as many action movies as horror movies that are just excuses to string together setpieces, do you think an inventive plot is high on the list of priorities during the creation of your average "reckless cop who plays by his own rules and gets into lots of shootouts" flick?

Sturgeon's Law is universal. It seems like you're singling out horror just because of the snobbery against it that exists just because it's more of a "geek genre" than action. Makes your implication of me being an "elitist prick" look like good old-fashioned Freudian projection, doesn't it?

* At least the first Scream movie managed to be self-conscious and self-referential enough to be amusing.

Funny, I think movies (and music, for that matter) today is much too self-conscious. I don't mind a horror movie avoiding clichés, but when it brings too much attention to how it's avoiding clichés - which is exactly the attitude Scream had - it makes the writers look smug and obnoxious. And, hey, there is such a thing as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Mobius 1]

Okay, I apologize if I made it look like I agreed with the critic consensus that Michael Bay is actually Hitler.

Says the guy who defends Uwe Bowl? Step off.

Oh, and with Transformers I paid to see robots fighting, not humans running away from robots fighting.

You got both. Besides, the best scene- the fight with Scorponok- in the film involved humans actually turning to make a stand from the humans. Without the humans to mediate the story, no one would give a shit about the movie beyond the hardcore fanboys who go "yaah Megatron". You literally cannot do a Transformers story without humans. And yes, unless you're the military- who went up, learned, and proceeded to kick the asses of Blackout and Megatron at the end- you're go to run from the "aargh giant robot with razor blades and guns trying to attack me because of eBay".

Rodriguez and Tarantino's Grindhouse project,

Not horror.

the Resident Evil filmatizations,

LOL crappy action movies? Even the games acknowledge themselve as silly action romps.

1408, Cloverfield,

Wooh thrillers. You'd have to be a fool to classify Clovie as horror.

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon,

You've got to be kidding me. Behind the Mask? Seriously? A parody?

The Host,

Obscure Korean monster movie? The point is, just because you have a smattering of generic horror movies doesn't mean you revoke the nature of the flavor of the decade. We had a couple Omen and Exorcist sequels in the eighties, as well as several dozen obscure horror movies. Does that revoke slasher films?

Hatchet, Diary of the Dead,Slither, 30 Days of Night, Skinwalkers,
Bug and The Orphanage. None of those are torture flicks.

I'll grant you those, even if the list is permeated with obscure titles- Skinwalkers- and crappy VG adaptations- 30 Days.

[Siege]

I did admit that torture horror is more popular than it used to be and will probably be remembered as the 2000s equivalent of the 1980s slasher fad, but it's far from all that horror movies today have to offer - not just the occasional Dog Soldiers and The Mist.

Um, yeah, fantastic. That's not what anyone is arguing though.

You also have the 28... Later movies, Rodriguez and Tarantino's Grindhouse project, the Resident Evil filmatizations, remakes of horror movies that aren't torture flicks, The Host, 1408, Cloverfield, Hatchet, [REC], Diary of the Dead, Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, Slither, 30 Days of Night, Skinwalkers, Pan's Labyrinth (okay, that was more of a fantasy flick with horror elements), Bug and The Orphanage. None of those are torture flicks.

Neither the Resident Evil movies, nor Cloverfield, nor Pan's Labyrinth were what I'd call horror, and the overwhelming majority of the rest of the titles you mentioned I've never even heard of. And I'm sorry, but if I've never heard of it, it ain't mainstream. And that's what we're talking about: mainstream movies. If we're going to be digging up the most obscure arthouse "we attract five-and-a-half viewers" movies, we'll be here all year.

Huh? There's just as many action movies as horror movies that are just excuses to string together setpieces, do you think an inventive plot is high on the list of priorities during the creation of your average "reckless cop who plays by his own rules and gets into lots of shootouts" flick?

Do you think the typical Die Hard movie takes itself as retardedly serious as Dawn of the Dead? Because that's the saving grace of action movies: they don't take themselves seriously. When they do, you end up with Steven Seagall bottom-of-the-Bell-curve crap. The difference between your average action movie and your average horror movie is that the action movie might be filled with just as many cliche's, but at least it doesn't expect the viewer to take the whole thing deadly serious. Horror movies do.

Sturgeon's Law is universal. It seems like you're singling out horror just because of the snobbery against it that exists just because it's more of a "geek genre" than action. Makes your implication of me being an "elitist prick" look like good old-fashioned Freudian projection, doesn't it?

Until you've got your degree in Internet Psychology, I think you ought to shut the fuck up about Freud or whoever the fuck else is your Favourite Obscure Person Of The Week today, and actually address my arguments. I don't fucking care how much of a "geek genre" horror is supposed to be, I despise 99% of what's coming out in the horror genre, and that's why I'm singling it out. And if you're somehow incapable of addressing the actual arguments I'm offering for why I think that is so, then kindly shove off, rather than bore us any further with the outdated philosophies of dead people you've read about in passing.

[Peregrin]

Rodriguez and Tarantino's Grindhouse project,

Not horror.

One half is a zombie apocalypse movie and the other half a serial killer movie... how the fuck is that not horror? And okay, one of the fake trailers was for that action movie Machete but the rest were for nonexistent slasher flicks, haunted house movies and something about Nazi werewolves.

1408, Cloverfield,

Wooh thrillers. You'd have to be a fool to classify Clovie as horror.

Why? How the fuck is Cloverfield not a horror movie?

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon,

You've got to be kidding me. Behind the Mask? Seriously? A parody?

So horror comedies no longer count as "true horror"? By not recognizing most of the titles I've brought up you've already revealed that you don't know anywhere as much about horror as I do.

The Host,

Obscure Korean monster movie?

The Host is hardly obscure... when it came out it was the top-grossing South Korean movie of all time, and it got a theatrical release in the US.

The point is, just because you have a smattering of generic horror movies doesn't mean you revoke the nature of the flavor of the decade. We had a couple Omen and Exorcist sequels in the eighties, as well as several dozen obscure horror movies. Does that revoke slasher films?

Look, I never argued that torture horror wasn't more popular than it used to. All I argued was that it isn't all that today's horror movies have to offer.

Hatchet, Diary of the Dead,Slither, 30 Days of Night, Skinwalkers,
Bug and The Orphanage. None of those are torture flicks.

I'll grant you those, even if the list is permeated with obscure titles- Skinwalkers- and crappy VG adaptations- 30 Days.[/quote]

30 Days of Night is a comic book adaptation. Get your facts straight.

Do you think the typical Die Hard movie takes itself as retardedly serious as Dawn of the Dead? Because that's the saving grace of action movies: they don't take themselves seriously. When they do, you end up with Steven Seagall bottom-of-the-Bell-curve crap. The difference between your average action movie and your average horror movie is that the action movie might be filled with just as many cliche's, but at least it doesn't expect the viewer to take the whole thing deadly serious. Horror movies do.

You don't watch much horror, do you? Because right now the only argument you have is a hasty generalization based upon one randomly picked movie from each genre, and that is hardly a scientific approach. Even then, Dawn of the Dead is hardly a good example of a humourless horror movie - like all of Romero's movies it's got a lot of black humour. If the Hare Krishna zombie or the scene where zombies shuffle through the mall and one of the bystanders remark that they're just repeating one of the few the routines they remember from their lives weren't meant to be obviously satirical, then what the hell was? Looks like you haven't done your research.

Don't forget the Tremors and Evil Dead series, Peter Jackson's low budget splatterfests, Gremlins and especially its sequel, the occasional touches of darkly poetic irony you'll find in lots of horror movies from the scene in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre where the cannibal clan's grandfather tries to knock out the heroine with a hammer but drops it feebly (if you've ever seen it you'll know it's played for disturbing whimsy) to how The Mist's ending turns the movie into a big morbid joke, the gross-out gags in Planet Terror, An American Werewolf in London or Shaun of the Dead - anyone calling horror a mostly humourless genre clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

[Ford Prefect]

Why? How the fuck is Cloverfield not a horror movie?

Cloverfield is no more a horror film than the American Godzilla was a horror film. Both these movies are also really rather similar, now that I think about it: unstoppable monster comes to New York, military tries in vain to stop it, group of characters deal with lesser spawn of the monster and so on. Neither of them are really kaiju films in the traditional sense. Given the way they focus on ground-level mayhem surrounding the antics of the monsters, they're more akin to disaster flicks like The Day After Tomorrow.

[Peregrin]

Why? How the fuck is Cloverfield not a horror movie?

Cloverfield is no more a horror film than the American Godzilla was a horror film. Both these movies are also really rather similar, now that I think about it: unstoppable monster comes to New York, military tries in vain to stop it, group of characters deal with lesser spawn of the monster and so on. Neither of them are really kaiju films in the traditional sense. Given the way they focus on ground-level mayhem surrounding the antics of the monsters, they're more akin to disaster flicks like The Day After Tomorrow.

Point taken.

[Siege]

You don't watch much horror, do you? Because right now the only argument you have is a hasty generalization based upon one randomly picked movie from each genre, and that is hardly a scientific approach.

Says the man who's not offered a damned thing as far as substantiation of his arguments go. At least I'm offering my opinion and the reasoning behind it, what else do you expect me to do, write a doctoral thesis?

Even then, Dawn of the Dead is hardly a good example of a humourless horror movie - like all of Romero's movies it's got a lot of black humour. If the Hare Krishna zombie or the scene where zombies shuffle through the mall and one of the bystanders remark that they're just repeating one of the few the routines they remember from their lives weren't meant to be obviously satirical, then what the hell was? Looks like you haven't done your research.

Oh, so just because the movie contains some thinly veiled criticism of consumer culture that suddenly means it doesn't take itself seriously? How do you think that is? Because I'd argue that means it takes itself more seriously. Come to think of it, Romero's boring-to-tears zombie movies are probably some of the best illustrations of what's wrong with the genre.

Don't forget *snip* - anyone calling horror a mostly humourless genre clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

So all you've got to offer is more of this "b- but there's exceptions TOO!" crap? How does this even begin to refute anything I've said? For god's sake, you're bringing up Peter Jackson's gorefests as if their popularity somehow refutes my claims, when among those claims was that in "[the horror genre it] seems that gore IS the plot"!

[Shroom Man 777]

My chick friends absolutely dig torture horror. Hostel and the Saw series. Four sequels strong and every blood-crazed chick is digging it. How is that not dominant?

So far, Hostel and the Saw dominate the horror market. Then after them comes those shitty remakes of Japanese movies featuring meowing albino mongoloids coming out of VCRs... they practically have hordes of squealing fangirls for fuck's sake.

And somewhere after that comes the 28 Days Laters and Grindhouses.

And Grindhouse was not horror by any means. Planet Terror was macho bullshit with Bruce Willis' TRUE FORM. I have not seen Death Proof, but the only horrer in that is the incomprehensible Tarantino dialog anyway.

What is this Behind the Mask of Lesie Vermont you speak of?

Or Skinwalkers?

Or Bug or Orphanage?

No one I know is on about the Diary of the Dead or Slither (which is a B-movie) or Pan's Labirynth.

Everyone (with a vagina) who I know is ALL OVER the Saws and the Hostels and the Retarded Albino Japanese Mongoloids From VCR Recordings.

To the point where they pass around the pirated compilation DVDs like... I don't know. Used condoms or something.

These movies have fangirls. They win.


And how on Earth can you classify the Tremors series as horror? It's a monster movie. Without dumb teens getting slaughtered. But with dumb hicks rigging up remote control toys with dynamite so they can go monster-fishing.

The Evil Dead series is ages old. Bringing it up in this debate is about as relevant as bringing up the last Nightmare on Elm Street movie. It's ancient history.

[Malchus]

These movies have fangirls. They win.

A-fucking-men! Anything with fangirls seems to win in the box office, which often means more-of-the-same sequels.

Frankly, I never understood the appeal of torture horror beyond the possible BDSM implications. Then again, considering how most stuff with hordes of rabid fangirls usually have some sort of relation to sexual subtext, maybe that explanation suffices.

And the Asian Horror flicks or remakes of such either just bore me or have me giggling. Then again, I usually find "horror" funny or boring in general.

And how on Earth can you classify the Tremors series as horror? It's a monster movie. Without dumb teens getting slaughtered. But with dumb hicks rigging up remote control toys with dynamite so they can go monster-fishing.

Yeah, I've always seen them as more of tongue-in-cheek B movies in the same vein as Eight Legged Freaks rather than a serious horror franchise.

[Peregrin]

How does this even begin to refute anything I've said? For god's sake, you're bringing up Peter Jackson's gorefests as if their popularity somehow refutes my claims, when among those claims was that in "[the horror genre it] seems that gore IS the plot"!

... huh? You've constantly moved your goalposts around. First your argument was that horror movies were clichéd and therefore bad. I then pointed out that you like lots of action movies that were clichéd as hell, so you backpedalled and said action movies had plots but horror movies were just excuses to string together setpieces. You admitted that when I pointed out that most action movies are excuses to string together setpieces to, so you changed your argument to action movies having a sense of humour and horror movies not. I name horror movies that HAVE a sense of humour, thus making it clear that all your arguments have relied upon hasty generalizations.... and it looks like you have no other option than self-immolation.

[Shroom Man 777]

He said that action movies have cliches and knowingly abide by them while winking at you.

[This is not always so. There are serious action movies that are too... serious. They end up being idiotic. Like Mission Impossible 2. Idiocy is good and funny. Serious idiocy isn't. Like MI2. Or Pearl Harbor.]

He also said that horrer movies do no such thing, and are solely in it for the gore without admitting so.

[This applies to most of 'em. The few that do admit the conventions and stuff end up being weird and surreal comedies.]

Your example of comedic horrer movies are... well, comedic horrer movies are stupid and totally weird (and awesome).


Screw this. Debating movies blows precisely because of the wide intersecting nature of 'em and how they're subjective and, well, you can lump anything together. There are no constants and crap.

Let me just say though, that action movies that are silly are generally still considered action movies and are awesome.

Horrer movies that are also comedic are... well, more different from serious horrer movies - even when compared to their comedic and serious action movie counterparts.

Action movies are, like, one big HUEG mixed lump of manliness and awesome. Compared to horrer, where there are VARYING and DISTINCT degrees of fucked-upness. You two are arguing over the different flavors and shades of both of 'em.



UGH. My head hurts. To sum it up:

Action movies can be funni.

Horror movies that try to be funny end up being no longer horror.

Action + funny = Funny action = action

Horror + Funny = Funny horror =/= horror


Action can mix well with funny. Horror does NOT mix well with funni. You can't really have REAL horror when you are giggling. Screaming and laughing are totally different things. Whereas naked he-men killing each other with steam pipes is very similar to laughter and humor. Humor and horrer are differents.


Also:

Action movies are expensive. Explosions are expensive.

Horrer movies are cheap. Fake blood and guts are cheap.

The popular SAW movies are just a bunch of no-name actors with lots of cheap blood makeup. Action movies that are popular have LOTS of expensive explosions and have a lot of BIG NAME actors/HE MEN.

Yet for cheaper monies, shitty SAW movies entertain blood-obsessed womens.

So there is obviously some sort of quality control issue here.

[Siege]

EDIT: There was a long-winded reply here filled with an elaborate rebuttal interspersed with all kinds of colourful expletives, but I've deleted it. You know why? Because when it comes right down to it I'm going to have the last word anyway, so I might as well cut this crap short right here and now and close the shit out of this topic, because that's what's going to happen anyway.

So hereby, I'm right, you're wrong, fuck off, this topic is closed.