Hmmm, well I don't read or see many scary prductions, in fact I try to stay away from scary a smuch as possible, but curiosity almost always gets the better of me and then it ends up sometimes with me staying up the whole night awake in fear of the unknown Yes some books are scary but if your imagination goe scrazy the aftermath is the scary part of a scary book. The movie just scares you outright. But what if, persay, a scary book was turne dinto a scary movie?Oh and Sycho, when did you get moderator status?

Edited by - Jagged on 2/19/2005 1:10:43 PM

@Finaday, it would qualify as fiction if i just made it up. i did not realise it had to be previously published work only. my bad.

EDIT: fie on you smilies you will rue the day you crossed the drood. narf.;P

Edited by - Druid on 2/19/2005 2:42:22 PM

I think in general people dont want to see the horror in life. After all who wants to care for anyone but himself?


Anyways, what do you guys think the perfect horror story would be like, giant animals are getting a bit boring. I dont watch that many movies, but I must admit not even in previews I have seen anythign that looks really really scary. Or is there something like that out there?

---

After all who wants to care for anyone but himself?

---

expand upon that if you will please.

"Beware of Geeks Bearing Gifts"

Oh it was meant at another post who has since been deleted.

In order to determine which is the most scary we must first determine whether these media can be described as scary at all. I have made up my mind (just in case you haven't already guessed) and will present my case as follows.

Movies tend to shock you; they use quick and sudden 'scares', designed to make you jump. They don't 'scare' you they surprise you. But most importantly of all they inadvertently do what books don't do as much - they create dramatic irony for the audience.
As any horror movie director will tell you it is nigh on impossible to scare someone if the atmosphere is all wrong but when you build up an atmosphere in a movie it is often easy to see, it's not subtle enough. You may not actively notice it, but all the typical factors contribute to create a general awareness that something bad is going to happen. The brain processes all this information and gears up the 'fight/flight' response ready for the inevitable trouble. But all this can be overridden or put aside in favour of another type of fear - sympathetic fear. If the atmosphere builds up, people can notice it and might realise something bad will happen, an example of dramatic irony. They may steel themselves for whatever ghost or ghoul is about to jump out of that clump of convenient vegetation but they will automatically start thinking on behalf of the characters - the 'fight/flight' response is either put aside and anxiety replaces it or if the moment is sufficiently empathetic, reinforce it. A similar reaction has said to have been observed in people who are 'afraid' of mice.
Oh dear, I've completely deviated from the subject Anyway, books are generally much better than movies for scariness because, as pointed out in previous posts, the mind plays a significant part in constructing the story. This is important because the mind likes to exaggerate. An exaggerated impression is what generates an almost continuous atmosphere of subtle worry, doubt and apprehension. The 'fight/flight' reaction seen in films is not present in a book because the senses are not involved. Because of this the experience is interpreted in the brain itself - a crucial point because horror authors are deprived of the "easy way out" and are forced to create that constant atmosphere I mentioned earlier. Failure to do so can result in a rather pedestrian narrative or a thriller at best but not a horror story. Another peculiar thing our minds do is make rather irrelevant connections, some that we are not aware of, thus when reading the brain may attempt to find a parallel within our own memories. The result can be predictably eerie.

Just looking over this - what a load of ramble. If you've read all the way down here, well done.

If you just skipped to the bottom, I'll give you a summary: Scary books are better than scary movies.

but to know that something will happen, is more scary, but there is a very distinct difference between horror and it's less gory cousin, the thriller.

Thrillers to me are 10x more scary than straight out horror, gore creates disgust, not fear. Fear is usually made by leaving blanks in a film, like shadows, making the audience 'fill in' the blanks, not seeing the whole picture. classic technique of alfred hitchcock.

-:-
We could've been a good couple, we coulda had somethin' special; but you one crazy-ass *****!

@sycho_ re: the deleted post response.

i think it would still be great to hear a little more on that. such a sweeping generalisation with regards the to summing up of all human beings as self centred and uncaring is worthy of expansion and discussion. as you will see, i have not bothered engaging in the majority of banal topics of late but that does not mean i have not been watching out for just such an interesting lead. i feel that this is at last a little carrot which might get some jucy responses.(carrot juice so to speak.)

regardless of the original post does your line imply that you were asking, at least rhetorically, whether anyone today cares about anyone other than themselves? do you really live in such a lonely world or do we need to see the deleted post in order to contextualise your seeming sad view of the world.

I'm for horror books all the way. Movies use "BOO!!" strategies too often to "scare" the audience--when all they're doing is showing something revoltingly disgusting, like a zombie, and startling you repeatedly. A real horror film makes you feel like you're unsure of reality, like you're insane. The Shining, for example.

Books have a big problem tho'. Most horror writers have great imaginations and otherwise suck at writing anything, so its hard to find a good book.

the original texas chainsaw massacre was good too

-:-
We could've been a good couple, we coulda had somethin' special; but you one crazy-ass *****!

Fritz Lang, a German Filmmaker who was the master in suspense the 1920's (and become a famous Hollywood author later) once was asked why he did not show what exactly had happened in his 1931-movie "M- Eine Stadt sucht einen Mörder" (rough translation: 'M - a city seeks a murderer', english title "M" ). Lang said that he makes clear that something terrible had happened. "But everybody watching the movie has in his or her mind another kind of the most terrible what could have happened to that poor child. So I did not want to show my choice. There is more of horror and fear then."

In general: if an author can provoke his/her audience to IMAGINE the horror it's even worse than to see/hear/read it. Because FEAR is gone (more or less) the second time you see/read/hear - but HORROR remains in your imagination.

edit: english title of "M"

Edited by - zazie on 2/21/2005 8:00:29 AM

Edited by - zazie on 2/21/2005 8:01:21 AM

@Druid, it was a pretty big generalization, I'll start a new thread on it, then you can discuss it.

@ zazie, thats pretty much what i said on the first page

sycho,

that's actually a difficult question. For starters, what is "more" scary? Or "scary" by itself? The views on that alone are very personal and therefore varying.

For myself, I couldn't really say what is more scary. Movies tend to be more intense, but the impact doesn't last that long - movies wear off quickly. Some books' effects, on the other side, seem to last forever - and the best are at least as frightening as a movie. Which boils down to: Personally, I would say books are potentially 'more' scary.