I agree with you on that.;)

Technical effects the director would have used were they available ;)

Some interesting points of view being presented, I just think its all to easy to try and characterise modern effects work as being 'souless' as its no different to me as people who derieded prosthetic effects work for relying on showing the horror rather than suggesting it, and less we forget the Halliwells of this world who stated there were no good horror films made after the 1940's. Alongside the review of texas chainsaw massacre that critiqued the film for relying on too many jump scares and a lack of subtelty.

That said I do take many points here about some of the modern ghost stories. I would argue the rot set in with the overrated Poultergeist, which after spontaneous combustion was probably Tobe hoopers worst film. A lot of the modern ghost stories seem too inspired by that rather than films like the innocents, a film far, far better than either the haunting or legend of hell house, or another film I really enjoyed the other.

But they weren't and far superior films were produced because of it. :tongue1: No one seems to try and use light and shadow like Lewton for example.

You do make some good points, but i just can't see Sinister and the like being mentioned fifty years from now as great horror....what am i saying? I can't see Sinister and such like being mentioned full stop. ;)

Nice one for creating a bit of discussion by the way. :thumb:

I've enjoyed reading these posts and it reminds me of what Nigel Floyd called 'cattle prod cinema', which is discussed in this Kermode Uncut video:

Kermode Uncut: Cattle Prod Cinema - YouTube

Give me something slow burning with escalating tension and which lingers in the mind for hours, days or months afterwards every time.

I think they will as I believe people who use horror forums are actually in the minority when it comes to deciding what is good or not about modern horror. We live in our own little cult world and often forget that there is a larger audience for horror films outside of ourselves. A lot of people I work with talk about being horror fans yet when we talk about films they have no idea what I'm talking about and I them!

This is very true. Most film fans I know rarely venture very far from what is available at their local multiplex and advertised on TV and the radio - and these are the people who consider themselves fans of film in the first place.

I really liked Absentia and Oculus. Certainly I do hope that more people watch oculus which did utilise modern effects but still managed to be an effective horror. Certainly better than the conjuring or insidious.

I do want to see Oculus. I didn't think much of Absentia though.

Judging by the 'hidden camera' trailers for films like Paranormal Activity, Insidious and Sinister, it seems those who watch such films are not horror fans, but those who go to cinemas for a good time and some escapism.

True horror fans are those who know the history of the genre, all of the subgenres, the films which influenced (and are referenced) in modern horror films and occasionally despair at what passes for horror films these days.

However, we are generally the ones who are most pleased when something bucks expectations and works on the power of suggestion, atmosphere and suspense, rather than cheap shocks. I knew I was in a cinema of like-minded individuals for the first time when I saw Zombie Flesh Eaters at the GFT and everyone was really well-behaved – no noisy snacks, chatting or mobile phone use – and laughed at the same time when there was crummy dialogue. Those who shriek, talk, and munch popcorn all the way through one of the Paranormal Activity films wouldn't have enjoyed themselves at all there, nor would they have had a clue who Fabio Frizzi was and wouldn't have taken anything to be autographed.

Is it too late in the discussion to say that all ghost films scare the shit out of me, old or modern. Oddly the identically themed and filmed possession films of late don't have the same effect!