I know that horror movies have not always been the most highly regarded films of all time, but there are a lot of really good ones out there. For instance:

Halloween
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
The Exorcist
Alien
Frankenstein
Silence of the Lambs

I could go on for a long time, but I am here to lay the blame on Scream for the state of horror movies today. They SUCK! 9 out of 10 horror flicks today are direct copies of Scream. Some idiot producer says, "Hey, let's make a ton of cash by putting half a dozen teen models on this movie poster and then slice them all up in this sorry excuse for a movie! If the movie does well, we can make a few sequels out of it!"

Scream 1,2&3
Valentine
Urban Legends 1&2
Final Destination 1&2
Jeepers Creepers 1&2
Cabin Fever
The last two Halloween movies
The Rage: Carrie 2

I thought the three "Scream" movies were all well-done, but I haven't even seen any of the others on your "suck" list. No matter how many sequels those movies get, I doubt any of them were that successful at the box office. The thing is all these airheads walk into Blockbuster and want to watch all of them rather than check out a classic or foreign film. You may blame "Scream" but there have always been crummy horror flicks (the whole Friday the 13th series, for example.)

Oh, and I know this makes me a pariah, but I watched the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" at the theatre, and it was just as amateurish, boring and repulsive in 1974 as it was when I checked it out more recently in the comfort of my home.

I don't think Scream is totally responsible, it just displayed the horror formula a little too well, and because they were succesful with it, studios are repeating it. That was the case even before Scream, but I do agree that teen model actors are getting more work now due to it. I am pretty sick of seeing old horror movies rehashed into crap like Jeepers Creepers and Wrong Turn, same with video games being turned into movies. If only there were some more writers out there putting out good horror stories, hopefully one would get made and have some success forcing studios and producers to look for more innovative stories and writers. Just for once, I want to see the stoners and sluts survive in a horror flick. Realistically, those who experience more of life at a young age are more likely(in my opinion)to survive a horror film situation.
Mark, I totally agree that the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a piece of crap.

I agree with the last two posters, with the exception of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." It was very slow at the beginning, but I thought it was very good and enjoyed it. High art? Certainly not. But scary, and the over-the-top performances of Leatherface and the screaming girl being chased made it kind of funny as well.

I had read an article about horror films once saying that one of the messages is, "if you're having pre-marital sex, you will get murdered." If you look at most of these films, that seems to be the case.

I liked "Scream"...thought it was clever and witty. The other two were just OK, and milking the franchise for all it was worth.

I don't think Scream is responsible ... there have always been horror movies like that (well, not always, but at least since the '70s). The Halloween movies, the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, and many more that weren't as successful.

I thought Scream was rather clever because it was basically a play on the standard cliches of horror movies (like the sluts getting killed, virgins surviving, the bad guy not really being dead, etc). I didn't really think they needed to make the sequels though.

The gritty reality of the original Chainsaw is what made it so scary. The fact that it just had those odd sound effects rather than music and the almost documentary style shots are why this movie stands out. It is not "amateurish" like mark f said. It just doesn't take that pop culture route that he is so obviously drawn to. I think that staying in high school time after time and not pushing the envelope is amateurish if you ask me.

Actually The Texas Chainsaw Massacre IS amateurish, and it was made by an amateur as well. Tobe Hooper has a lengthy resume of absolute crap to his name and TCM is where he started. The acting is awful, the lighting is crap, the plot(?)was crap, and then the displeasure of listening to a woman scream for 40 minutes to top it off! This is right up there with the Blair Witch Project as amateur movies that a small portion of the population still clings to for some bizarre reason. I mean seriously people, Tobe Hooper directed Crocodiles! High school is exactly what TCM is, and I can't imagine people who are out of high school liking it unless they saw it when it came out in the theatre and still have a nostalgic attachment to it. It is not realistic, straying so far from the story it was inspired by, that even Ed Gein would be disappointed! Psycho is a much better horror film that took elements from Ed Gein's life.

Smenkharon,

Sure Tobe Hooper made other films that were crap, but so did Michael Cimino! Is "The Deerhunter" crap because he made "Heaven's Gate", and some other films I don't even remember? Look at some of the crap Martin Scorecese (sp?) has come out with.

I'm surprised at the visceral negative response you have to this film...it's not a film that I have a super strong feeling about, although I do enjoy it. Then again, check out the "PT Anderson" board under directors, and you'll see everyone jumping down my throat when I had an over-the-top reaction to someone saying that "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia" are among the greatest films ever made! Of course, my visceral reaction was justified ;-)

An interesting thing I read in reference to the title of this thread was someone writing about how 'Scream,' in a way, was responsible, but not just because of its success. The writer alleged that 'Scream' was so detrimental to the quality of the horror movie genre because it was too ironic: its attitude of playing off the standard horror movie clichés and popular culture, coupled with the many clones of it that arose later, turned the entire horror movie genre into self-parody, which couldn't last it more than a few years or so.

In response to the TCM discussion if you want to see a better glossier version of TCM that doesnt feel like a high school film check out the remake which I thought was actually quite good.

-watch me get slammed-

I was just about to put a thread asking why all the current horror movies suck...guess you answered my question. But I don't think that that is the only reason look at AVP great idea bad movie. If only they had done a better job with it.

Scream was a post-modern take on the 'teen-slasher' film. It was intelligent and amusing.

'I know what you did last summer' etc were just exercises in plagerism. As for Scary Movie - How can you make a spoof of a satire of a horror comedy? It didn't work at all. I also lamented 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' - It took all the worst elements of modern horror and combined them with soap opera (how bad is that?!!)

You could argue that Scream was responsible but I think it was more down to Hollywood's insatiable desire for money (Scream was incredibly successful lest we forget). Those films will soon be forgotten, as were 90 percent of the eighties teen-slasher flicks.

With all genres there is one catalyst that stands the test of time. Scream will be remembered if nothing else for being the first popular mainstream post-modern horror film.

When I saw Scream I always viewed it as more of a parody of horror flicks than a movie that was actually supposed to scare me. For me it's tounge-in-cheekness was it's saving grace that made it legitimately entertaining.

Unfortunately, it crystallized a horror movie formula that was used in a lot of really bad movies. But, it's not the only movie in history to be successful enough to be copied by a lot of posers trying to chip off a little vicarious box office success.

That is very true. Making money is a lot more important now than making great films. The truly successful blockbusters have been films that dared to be different. They are still watched now and find new audiences all the time. Will anyone remember 'Cherry Falls' in 10 years? I doubt it. Very few remember it now.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a maverick piece of cinema. It is still creepy even now. Why try to better it? It's been done. Move on.

Jaws remains the only good 'big fish eating tourists' movie to this day. Piranah was laughable. Deep Blue Sea was...erm. As for 'The Evil beneath Loch Ness' (I can't even bring myself to comment). They forgot about the CHARACTERS.

The only director to rip off a film and better it was Quentin Tarrantino with Reservoir Dogs (Anyone seen City on Fire?). He admitted ripping it off and said that if you're going to plagarise then you'd better make damn sure it tops the original.

This debate could take place with any artistic medium. I'm just gutted that so many people fall for the hard sell. If people boycotted these terrible imitations and refused to buy them, we'd have a healthier selection of films, music and games. Critics wouldn't be so keen to hype 'the next big thing'. The fact we even have 'big things' indicates that there are far too many 'small things' out there.

I think it is appropriate and interesting to evaluate modern horror movies like Scream in light of directors like Hitchcock. Other than a handful of modern horror movies, most are predictable and use rehashed themes. Hitchcock was anything but predictable. Who today would consider attempting to frighten us with movies about a fear of heights, suppressed voyeurism, and such sweet creatures as birds? Both the writers and Hitchcock had to stay in touch with their vivid imaginations, their humanity, and remain fearless in attempting the new and different to create genuine terror. You never knew from what direction Hitchcock was going to scare you. When Scream and most other modern movies in the horror genre are examined in light of Hitchcock's creativity they become monotonous and depend more on fears thrust upon us from the "outside" versus fears that already dwell within. The Exorcist, Nightmare on Elm Street, and some of Stephen King's novels brought to film stand toe to toe with Hitchcock's ability to terrify. Like Hitchcock they employ realities present in our human experience to be the "monsters." (dreams/Kruger, the dark side of human nature/the Exorcist, cabin fever/the Shining, the idolization of fame/Misery, etc.) If Hollywood continues to toss the same old mosters our way we are going to greet them with a yawn; however, if creative directors will tap the monsters within us we will "scream."

The first scream was really quite clever in that it was a comment on the genre itself and well as functioning within that genre effectively.

I thought the sequels were rehashed crap as were the bunch of copy cat trash that followed that didn't have one ounce of the smarts that Scream had.

So in a way, yes, Scream is responsible for a lot of the drek. But it is also partly responsible for the resurgance in the genre because it really showed just how stale & lame the genre had become. Then we get an influx of fresh-ish horror. Like Rob Zombie's movies for instance.