Are gory Horror movies dying?

Havent seen any gory Horror movies in a long time now apart from EVIL DEAD REMAKE & THE CABIN IN THE WOODS

@Byshop? OT? Any recommendations??

They seem to only exist regularly in b movies straight to Netflix type of films now

Now that you mention it they might just be....probably because most people don't find that sort of movies scary.

Lol, singling out me. Honestly, that's probably a good idea.

No, I wouldn't say they are dying but for a long time now the "PG-13" film has been the sweet spot for pulling in maximum revenue for a film, which at the end of the day is the primary goal for most film makers. It's not that these films don't exist or get made anymore, it's that they tend to be distributed differently and play in different theaters (if theaters at all).

The V/H/S films are somewhat recent and are pretty gory. They are anthology horror films and there are three of them. The first is the best IMHO but they are all decent. [REC] 1 and 2 (not 3) are good and are the Spanish language series that the first Quarantine movie was a remake of. ABCs of Death are also anthology horror films with each of the two films consisting of 26 short films, each for a letter of the alphabet and each by different directors/writers. Those were... pretty over the top and honestly not to my taste. Some of the bits were fine but others were just gross on so many levels. I don't mind horror or shocking content, but not if that's the only thing the film has going for it. I.e. I don't like "torture porn" like much of Eli Roth's stuff. I like my horror to be scary, not just trying to be gross and hard to look at.

-Byshop

A follow-up question to that answer: How common were gory "a movies" back in, say, the 80's compared to now?

I mean, back around that time there were some standouts such as Alien that were clearly "a movies" and cost a lot to make. But weren't those the exception to the rule back then too? Sure there was also stuff like Re-Animator. But as much as I love Re-Animator, that was CLEARLY a "b movie". It was obviously cheap as hell.

Neglecting the "b movies" that were clearly done on the cheap, exactly how less common are super gory A movies now? I'm not disputing the notion that gory A movies are less common now than they were 30 or 40 years ago. I'm genuinely asking how less common they are now. Because at first thought without looking into it, it almost seems like the gory movies were ALWAYS sort of a niche thing. Going back to the early 80's (and around that relative time), I sort of feel like the gory movies have for the most part sort of ALWAYS been relatively low budget movies that catered to a niche audience.

And yes, I know that there are exceptions. But when I think back to the really gory movies that were released when I was young, I almost want to say that a LOT of them were low budget movies that if not "b movies" were really close to being "b movies" (in terms of budget and mass appeal). I sort of suspect that time is making this disparity seem more pronounced. As in, some movies back then became cult classics or even genuine classics. People reminisce about Re-Animator or Basket Case or Nightmare on Elm Street, but weren't those movies pretty cheap and disposable "just movies" at the time they were released?

@Byshop: You have awesome knowledge of Horror movies and recommended me tons in past.Shame you cant recommend me anymore Gory movies as you said Lighter Horror movies now are the trend.Seen REC Quadrology,V/H/S.Thing is im not a fan of found footage or in first person movies.Was very dissapointed with The Mummy,Alien Convenant as well.Thinking to go back to 70's Italian movies as Demonia lol.

@MrGeezer: Ummm Tons of Gory stuff in 80's Evil Dead,Brain Dead, Demons,A nightmare on elm street,Texas Chainsaw Massacare,The Thing,Friday the 13th,Hellraiser ETC.List is pretty long.What you mean there was less gory stuff in 80's?????

I was talking about "A movies". A lot of the stuff you mentioned was cheap shit, which back then probably would have been the equivalent of today's direct-to-Netflix movie. Granted, there are some exceptions. The Thing had a $15 million budget in 1982 money and looked like a real movie with real production values. But, like, Hellraiser had a measly $1 million production budget in 1987 dollars. Clearly not an "A movie". While it gained some cult status and spawned a bunch of sequels, at the time it wasn't some masterpiece that people were throwing money at. At the time it was just some cheap-ass niche gore flick that only got made because its budget was small enough to make it likely to turn a profit.

By comparison, I'm sure that now you can find plenty of gory low budget independent movies on Netflix.

I think horror movies are dead in general (no pun intended).

I mean, yeah, there are horror movies that are still getting released in the theaters, but we all know intuitively that they're going to suck because they're derivatives or knock-offs of critically acclaimed horror movies.

Plus, if you think about it, I feel that there's no reason for the movie industry to try and invest into creating new gory, slasher flicks because there are already well-established franchises that are so iconic that they're practically untouchable. Think about it, here we are 30-40 years later, and we're still getting installments of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on Elm Street.

Plus, the genre itself isn't deep to begin with, so of course no one is going out of their way to create a new franchise because there really isn't a demand for it, and like I mentioned before, there are already established franchises that have succeeded in that gore, slasher genre. So the movie industry isn't going to risk millions of dollars on a new horror franchise when they can clearly go back to the already iconic and loved franchises, because they know those franchises will make money regardless of how shitty the newest re-boot or re-make of the said established franchise might be.

But hey, that's just me.

@MrGeezer: I would compare it more to early to mid 2000s were there's type of movies were more abundant

The likes of hostel, the saw series in its infancy, House of 1000 corpses and devils rejects, wolf creek Eden lake etc. These were not b movies.

They were all premiered at cinemas with decent budgets, these type of films are not as common now a days

I dont enjoy sissy Horror movies as Conjuring or Annabelle.Give JU ON,THE GRUDGE anyday over those craps.

Hostel had a production budget of $4.5 million, Saw had a production budget of about $1.5 million.

Historically, most of these kinds of gory movies have only managed to get made because they were super cheap and therefore it's a lot easier for them to turn a profit from a niche audience. Granted, today we don't see as many of them in cinemas, but there's much less of a need to release them in cinemas with the ease at which people can just watch them at home without ever leaving the house. Either way, there are still plenty of gory movies being made. And just like always, they're pretty much all low budget movies with limited mass appeal.

@MrGeezer: two reasonable big budgets there for two gorey films that both spent time on cinemas, that doesn't happen anymore they are normally straight to Netflix or some other streaming or download service

In the cinema it's rare to get films like this anymore, although I believe there is a new Saw film coming.

Less than $5 million in 2005 dollars is not a "reasonably big budget".

And keep in mind that streaming and download services were in their early stages back in 2005. I'd wager that if it had been as easy to stream and download movies back then, that Hostel and Saw WOULDN'T have gotten a theatrical release.

But it clearly comes down to money. Saw is getting a new theatrical sequel because the Saw franchise is a proven money-maker. If anyone thought that some new direct-to-streaming gore flick was going to be a hit, then it would be getting a theatrical release instead of getting stuck on Netflix.

I also wonder how much of this has to do with big blockbuster movies. When it comes to the mega-budget blockbuster films, it seems like we're getting a LOT more of them than we used to. And the more those movies cost, the more rooms they have to screen in in order to turn a profit. I suspect that means a lot more rooms being devoted to stuff like expensive superhero movies, which means that SOMETHING is going to have to go.

@MrGeezer: I would consider 1-5 million budget b movie either, it's like AA games that used to be common in ps1/ps2 game's

A film with a pretty decent budget but not major blockbuster like marvel films

The rare time something that's not a sequel, remake or marvel movie comes on the cinema I jump at it.

I don't think you watch any Horror movies to make any assumptions, specially Gory Horror movies.Your defination of Horror movies is War movies as Saving Private Ryan lol.

Don't lie :I

I don't think gore is horror, though.

Within our silly genera labels war movies are generally not considered horror, although they should be. They tend to evoke all the same emotional responses as a a "horror" movie and IMO are terrifying in a real way, in a way ghosts and goblins and freddys and jasons can never be. The handful of movies ive seen that make me want to take a shower afterward or i cannot watch again, are generally accurately portrayed true stories or war stories..... and visitor Q (seems to be the exception. although i did watch it a few times). I dont know... maybe ive gotten so numb to "horror" that it does nothing for me anymore (at least not many movies) and to get those feelings i once got from horror, i tend to have to go some place else.

As for the original question.

Gory horror will never go away for a couple reasons.

A. Its super cheap and with minimal releases one can make their money back.

B. Its a great starting point for young producers, directors, SFX, etc. Its so common that at one point (for like 30 years) it was almost an industry standard. The affordability of equipment has decreased so peoples options are wider now, has changed this. But its still very much there. Its simply gone from like... 9 of 10 to 7 of 10.

I'm sure there's no shortage of gorefest out there, I've no desire to see everything under the sun, I only saw one Saw movie, if I ever find myself in a shortage I'll watch the rest, and whatever else straight to video Hostel movie comes out.

@kod: Even then, it can backfire. I mean, take Green Room for example. It wasn't SUPER gory, but there was some gross shit in it. And despite having a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and only costing $5 million to make (in 2015 dollars), it only pulled in about $4 million dollars at the box office (worldwide).

Gory horror movies haven't gone away and they never will, but I feel like they've actually sort of ALWAYS been slim pickings at the cinema (with some notable exceptions, of course). And for good reason. Most of them just plain aren't pulling in really good money, especially when they're unproven properties and especially now that cinemas are dominated by more and more blockbuster movies with $100+ budgets. The fact that most of them don't make much money is precisely why most of them are relatively cheap as shit to make and why most of them either don't get a theatrical release or only get a very limited theatrical release.

Hmm, guess you mean Ash vs evil dead? when you say remake.

Other than that a new saw movie is coming , and i would check amazon and netflix or any other streaming service , most goes straight to dvd/streaming now a days since they are b/c- movies.

@Jacanuk: Yeah Ash Vs Evil Dead Season 1 and 2 and Evil Dead Reboot (2013) are gory?

I wasnt even referencing movies like that. That movie quality/cost was steps above what i was referencing. I was speaking of the thousands of bad horror movies that are nothing but gore, that come out yearly and cost like 10-200 grand. The August Underground series would be a great example.

I thought he meant the remake.

Which is Ash vs Evil Dead?

any other remake?

Suspria is a great film!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im6koyYDwcA

Unlike most horror remakes, they actually did a fairly good job with that one. 7/10 imo.

Thanks not seen that one.

Yeah, I assumed he meant the remake of the first film that came out a few years ago. I saw it in the theaters. It was pretty decent, overall, but it didn't quite reach the levels of pants-shitting dread that the first low budget film managed to reach. Haven't seen the director's cut, but I assume it's probably more gory.

-Byshop

Remaking the evil dead is like trying to remake star wars or citizen kane. Someone might be able to do it in an acceptable manner, but it could never be as good as the original.

The directors cut adds like 4 minutes of scenes if i remember correctly, something small. But the biggest change is a lot of blood in the theatrical release had to be recolored black to get it an R rating and in the DC it goes back to being red.