Breaking Down the Space Horror Formula

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3430353/breaking-space-horror-formula/

I think this editorial came out by the time when Life came out this year. You know, the scary movie about an alien?...The one with Ryan Reynolds...yeah, that one. Apparently, it was criticized for being a rip off of Alien. And I don't blame them, we've seen people isolated on a space ship where an alien terrorizes them. But is what space horror is funneled down to? That same formula? Meagan Navarro poses that question.
Now, one can't just come out of left field discussing space horror. It's a genre that requires watching more then just Alien. There's definitely a sizable library of such movies and  clearly Navarro has seen her fair share of such and is able to draw her own conclusions. It seems that the plagues of Alien rip offs first spawned in the 80s. I think it's fair to say they have decreased since then, but there are still some once in a while.
You know, I don't think I read this for the lead, kicker or even the pictures. There are some pictures though, They really don't do a whole lot other than just give the reader something to look at. They don't really match up with what is being described in the article. The text itself does flow and it makes for an easy read, because it really doesn't have another function other then giving super specific examples. When it comes to a kicker, I only think that the last line satisfies the role. "With the space horror formula as claustrophobic as its setting, it begs the question; is it possible to reinvent space-set horror the way Ridley Scott did in 1979?" I think that it would be better if that were put at the beginning, but that's just me.
Again, easy read to keep the audience engaged and it's always going to provoke someone's interest when you tell them of a movie they haven't seen yet. Maybe Navarro wrote this editorial as a call for the readers to view some of the examples and be the judges themselves rather then taking her word.

30 Years Later: A 1987 Theatrical Retrospective

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3427239/30-years-later-1987-theatrical-retrospective/

It's funny, when I think of the year 1987, nothing really comes to mind. But after reading the editorial, '30 Years Later: A 1987 Theatrical Retrospective' by Meagan Navarro, I come to realize that there was more to this year then meets the eye. And since I'm a sucker for the sometimes dated horror films of the 80s and lists, I gave this piece a shot.
The list on first glance, is nothing special to me though. There were movies I've seen, movies I heard of, movies that I saw another movie in the same series as and some movies that I've never seen before. Nothing truly new to the average horror fan, but I'm always open to hear or read how other people feel about the movies that I may have differing feelings about.
The only research required here is a general knowledge of the movies themselves so it makes for a relatively easy read. It's clear that I didn't do my research before reading this, but fortunately Navarro did. I'm also going to be painfully honest here and say that the only reason I was drawn in or read the article in the first place is because of the pictures. 80s horror has a very unique style, you see. Something that separates it from the all the other decades. They're just more colorful; when blood is shown (which was all practical effects back then) they would always be bright scarlet, red. That or they would just cut away thanks to some censoring issues, but that was common back in the 80s. That can make for the lead. The bad news is that I really don't see an effective ending to this piece other then resorting to asking the reader about their favorite 1987 horror movie. For someone familiar as the writer with 1987, it would be an easy question. But for those who don't, sort of like myself, might not be able to answer it. This made me question who the audience was. Super hardcore horror junkies who record each movie that comes out every here or just your average Joe horror fan looking for a casual read. The reader shouldn't have to be an expert, that is the writer's job.
The flow is nice and easy, lines separating the different entries with a subhead and picture for each one. Clearly, the most flawless way to construct an editorial list. There's a pace set and every movie that is discussed is given equal increments of the reader's time. And of course, it's very hard to get lost or confused while reading it.
As for fallacies, well you're guess is as good as mine.
The reason why this particular editorial had my interest is, I repeat myself, because I like 80s horror. There was something that they were just doing right. I read this list to perhaps find movies that I haven't seen and may one day give them a watch. And I think that was this article's purpose all along. To put out popular and insecure movies from the year 1987 and get people talking about them. In fact, this whole editorial seems almost like an anniversary tribute to 1987.

We Saw Some of 'Annabelle 2', Which Focuses on Mood and Atmosphere

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3427980/sxsw-saw-annabelle-2/

Funny how last week I discussed horror movies that deserved a sequel, but this week I'll be discussing a horror movie that actually doesn't deserve one, but that didn't stop them from making it. 'Annabelle' was a spin off from 'The Conjuring' (which was the bomb by the way), a movie about a haunted doll (the titular character). I bet its because people are still afraid of doll is the reason why it sells so well, but that's not what I want to talk about.
I choose this piece because, why else? The people over at Bloody Disgusting! had the chance to see some of the scenes from the upcoming movie. In the piece they recap the certain scenes on which they were able to see.
It's obvious that for me, the kicker was the title. I remember seeing the first 'Annabelle' in theaters, so naturally I have an interest in seeing the second one. I'm not expecting anything big from it, just curiosity. I could go on a bit about how much I am looking forward to it or whether or not it will be a bad movie or terrible movie, but I want to discuss why this is an editorial.
'Focuses on mood and atmosphere' is clearly what Trace Thurman had in mind as a message for the reader. Like all editorials, there needs to be an opinionated message that the writer is trying to convey. In this piece, I can only see bits and pieces. Only mentioned at the end, "I can tell you, there does seem to be a bigger emphasis on mood and atmosphere in this film." And that's really all Thurman has to say about it. Maybe the excerpts from the scenes themselves were the main center of this editorial. Maybe it was that section that was meant to do all the talking.
It almost seems like the reader has no choice but to take the writer's word for it in this scenario. After all, they're not the ones who have seen the scenes so the only reference they have to it is the descriptions they are given. That kind of kills the purpose. To have an opinion on a movie, don't you have to see it for yourself and not have a friend or someone else describe it for you?
Very, very little to say about this editorial. The only research required on this matter is a bit of knowledge on the film series and that's about it. You don't have to see the scenes that the article describes, the writer has got you covered. The lead comes from the title and the title alone. The audience is clearly horror moviegoers and people who have at least scene the prior movies. The flow or basic layout is an intro, the body of the scenes themselves and then ending with a short conclusion. The fallacy here is that they're trying to put movie scenes to paper and let that be the only porthole to reader's opinions. Again, it almost seems like you have no choice but to take Thurman's word for it. But, you can judge the upcoming movie fairly since the trailer is pasted at the end.

Six Well Overdue Horror Sequels

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3425195/6-well-overdue-horror-sequels/

Bloody Disgusting is booming with activity since the recent happenings in the horror entertainment industry. We got new movies coming here, there and everywhere, but I decided to stick to an editorial about movies that haven't even (and probably) won't happen. I was firstly drawn in by the title, 'Six Well Overdue Horror Sequels!'
At the first line, Luiz H.C. had me with "Complaining about Hollywood's lack of creativity is a worn-out cliche at this point. The overabundance of sequels, prequels, remakes and reboots has been blamed for the downfall of western entertainment, but many critics fail to realize that the movie industry has always been this way." This had a profound effect on me. I then realized that in fact they did have sequels back in the Golden Age of movies in the 30s, 40s and 50s and also reboots from the 50s to the present. With a lead like this, the piece definitely starts out with a bang. The kind of bang that makes you place a hand over your brow to nurse the mind blow that you might be experiencing.
Now, on to the list itself. I find it interesting that Luiz selected six because when you see a 'top list' you'd normally expect something that is divisible by five, like 10, 15 or 20. It's an interesting choice in my opinion. I need to discredit myself here, seeing how I've only seen three of the six movies listed. That is my own fault since it seems that quite a lot of horror junkies have seen these movies, being that this editorial was on the feature page.
I'm also required to discuss the more boring parts of this piece; research and flow. Seeing how this is entirely based on movies, the only research I think is required is firstly watching said movies then at least having a general idea of the cast and crew and the year it came out. That's what I like about these kind of pieces, you don't have to be pouring over books and articles to find what you're looking for. The article is divided (literally, there's lines and sub heads splitting the content apart) beautifully. You'd have to be an idiot to not follow it correctly. I mean, come on, they got pictures for every section.
Most importantly Luiz gets the reader thinking, what would it be like if one of these movies got a sequel? I for one am in favor of a new Re-Animator, but good luck with that because it will never be better then the first. Another Trick R' Treat to watch on Halloween? Yeah, go for it. Another 'Dead' entry from George Romero? Fire away, but maybe try to bring back the spirits of the original three as opposed to the newer entries. The audience for this article particular is probably just the truly hardcore horror fans. There maybe some movies mentioned that perhaps the average movie goer hasn't seen (probably because some of them never even were released in theaters and went right to DVD).
Enjoyable read and the list of movies that deserve sequels is entirely open ended. The list is logical and makes sense. But I have to say that the main strength doesn't come from the list itself, but rather the intro and the kicker. Seriously, that's the best one I read.

Slashing Back! How to Revive the Slasher Genre

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3422854/slashing-back-revive-slasher-genre/

This is again another topic I've always wanted to discuss other then Oscars and horror movies; the slasher genre. Back in the day, the 70s, 80s and a little bit of the 90s, all it took to please a crowd was a knife in the heart with a killer in a mask who doesn't speak. You got your classic high school victim stereotypes and a final climactic showdown with the pure girl. It was popcorn fun, but overtime it grew old and tired. Yet Hollywood still seems to be pumping them out (less then usual) to cash in on this throwback from the past. 
But the question in Zachary Paul's opinion piece on Bloody Disgusting isn't why, it's how? As in how can the slasher genre make a possible comeback? He offers possible solutions based on what the slasher genre has taught horror fans and movie goers. This seems to be the perfect time to bring this topic up, since new entries in the A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween and Child's Play (personally I'm pumped for this one) are in the works. There was a new Friday the 13th relaunch coming out as well, but for whatever the reason it was canceled. This could've been a solid piece of evidence as to why the slasher genre revival may take a bit longer then expected, but it is never brought up. Maybe because the website had published at least fifty articles prior. 
The piece is nicley organized with sections, which is something that I always look for in these. It's a good way to keep the reader engaged without overwhelming them. The last article I remember reading I couldn't tell where it started and where it ended. We take a look at the past, present, revolution and possible future of the slasher genre. The one that I grasped the most is Paul's possible solution. "I don't claim to have all the answers. I believe the key for future slashers' successes are in the details. Filmmakers must crack the modern audience code in order to elicit maximum scares and minimum eye rolls. Only it can't be done by ignoring the over 40 years of lessons the sub genre has to offer. We can't relay on the meta approach from the 90s. This brand of humor has been done to death with increasingly diminished returns." The audience has more then changed over the years and the genre was forced to change with them, but it didn't. At least, not correctly. And this is something that a lot of horror junkies feel strongly about. 
In the end, Paul's goal is to give his readers something to think about and develop their own opinions about. He has had about 70 comments on the article so people are taking an interest. Perhaps they too want to see their favorite slasher back on the silver screen. 

When Horrific Films Get Categorized as Horror

https://moviepilot.com/posts/2223248


When a movie like 'Human Centipede' or 'Tusk' gets defined as a horror film, there's bound to be some debate. Just because something is hard to watch or over the top shocking; doesn't make it horror. Lisa Fremont at Movie Pilot covers this topic in her opinion piece; When Horrific Films Get Categorized as Horror'.
Right off the bat, Fremont gets respect from me. Because she had the willpower to sit through two of the most revolting movies ever made in one day no less; 'A Serbian Film' and 'Salo', both foreign movies. I've heard of 'A Serbian Film' mostly through ironic appreciation. I've seen 'Salo' once...it's like a visit to the deep web. It's very unpleasant. These movies are the centerpiece of evidence in this piece. And if anyone has seen them, then you know how powerful they are. The directors of these movies are under the assumption that rape, torture, questionable fetishes, and demented sexual fantasies are horror and if they include in their movies then they got a quality horror flick. They are wrong. It's a good way to get your audience to wretch and the neighbors to file a restraining order on you, but it's not the next Frankenstein. Fremont explores these movies and how they have the outline and messages of a horror film, but they just come across as movies whose sole purpose is to shock audiences time and time again. And that's a sad existence. Fremont is aware of what makes a horror movie and is expressive about it throughout.
The piece is really easy to follow from lead to kicker. Fremont gets it because she too is a movie goer. She brought so many new things to light for me like how over the years the horror fans seemed to have devolved into movie goers who only want to see blood, guts, and violence from a movie and it's less about the art of provoking fear and more about who can gag the most. The claim is that the horror genre is misrepresented when movies like the two examples are allowed to share the same shelf space as them. Said claim is at the end of the piece which makes for a great message for the reader to finish with.
This piece flows a little bit like a blog post and for a reader like me that really drew me in. There's no professional boundaries here and Fremont is on the same page as us. She's seen the movies and how disturbing they are. Seeing said movies are worthy of street cred. Seriously, you'll never get over them. Again, not because they're scary, but because they drill into your brain with these unforgettable, horrible moments that are possible in real life. That's enough to get audience interest; seeing the movies so they don't have to.

Invasion of the Script Snatchers

http://horrornews.net/117198/plagiarism-hollywood-films-invasion-screenplay-snatchers-part-1/

I would start out with arguing whether or not this two part piece is even an opinion piece. It's not truly trying to prove anything, but just to throw a few pointers that Horror News Net writer Bill Burke finds in horror cinema. An important word in filmmaker is 'rip-off', which usually implies plagiarism. And that is exactly what this piece covers, starting with its wacky title; Invasion of the Script Snatchers. This entire topic is present throughout the entire piece.
There somethings in this article that maybe common knowledge among horror fans, such as Nosferatu just being a giant legal cover for them to make a Dracula movie when they really weren't allowed to. However, when one moves onto part two of the piece it gets more interesting. When it is brought up that Alien (1979) may actually might have been plagiarized from an A.E. Van Vogt's novel Black Destroyer. When it comes to evidence, it's mainly visual, which is why I found it so easy to read this piece in the first place. Throughout the piece, there are many pictures from movie scenes and posters; demonstrating a visual pattern in similarities. Once you see them, it is a bit hard to deny that the writer may be on to something. There's not a whole lot of variety of sources, none really, it's all visual. But it does kind of provoke a call to action. As if the writer wants you to see the movies and see for yourself.
The kicker itself is in the title. In my opinion, plagiarism (the word alone) is an indicator of drama and that is what people like to read about. In America. it's all about protecting your property and plagiarism is the wanted criminal. So, it is interesting to see the films and sources who somehow got away with it by passing it off as original....then you settle down, give said films a watch and then undermine everything the movie was meant to be. Again like our last one, I don't think it matters how they start and end here because all the good stuff is the middle with the visual evidence. However, it ends nicely by mentioning a Jaws rip off, Jaws being arguably the number one copied off movie. Burke kind of settles back and lets the pictures speak for him and let everything come full circle.
The problem when I read this was that I was putting way too much faith in the pictures guiding me through that sometimes I lost interest in what Burke was righting. When you're discussing something as plagiarism, you're going to want show visuals of it. Anyone could accuse someone of copying by just saying they did. So more often then not, I found myself looking through the pictures then actually reading. I think the only time I got back into the text itself was when I came across a picture that needed an explanation. The Vogt and Alien part in part two had me reading it since the pictures didn't have a whole lot of context.
For a piece with little or no argument to pursue, it is a little difficult for a non horror or movie fan to stay engaged. Sure it's fun to say, "oh, I get it," at the pictures, but that's not enough to keep the reader drawn in, However, Burke writes humorously and in good taste. By the end of reading, you may want to check out one of these rip off films for yourself. Maybe go to a few forums about the subject, or maybe even find some other instances of plagiarism in movies for yourself.

Remember the Oscar Nominated Horror Film?

https://litreactor.com/columns/what-ever-happened-to-the-oscar-nominated-horror-film

For our first opinion piece critiquing, we'll be looking at a topic I've been itching to scratch; the Oscars and the horror genre. Now, those two words are barely used together in the same sentence. And this column by Christopher Shultz gives its two cents on why that is. Specifically, what happened to the Oscar nominated horror film? As it is clearly written as the title. 
Now when researching this topic, one needs to only search up a list of Oscar nominated horror films. Every category applies; best film, best actor, supporting actor, etc. Usually Oscars and horror are reflected back to the 60s with Carrie, The Exorcist, or The Omen. But Shultz goes all the way back to the root, the 1930 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. But how credible is Shultz? Well, as much as any guy who took a peak at a wiki page. Horror and the Oscars is a subject based more so on common knowledge of film rather then research, so naturally we're not going to get a lot of source citations....well, none actually. To his credit, the article does do a great job of organizing and structuring itself. Taking itself through the history of horror from its beginning in the 30s and its something that anyone familiar in the genre can follow. 
It's a very linear piece, going from point a to point b without stumbling, only bothering to stop the flow should a disclaimer have to be made. It does start of with a question of what happened with the Academy Awards and horror which may draw readers in because that's a very valid question; its something that movie goers or people in general will sometimes stop and ask themselves.
As I said before, the piece does its job in creating a coherent timeline. It let's you know where it starts and where it ends. It asks the question in the beginning, it gives it's opinions in the middle, then asks for yours in the end. There may have been a couple segments where I did feel a tad bit bored, but never wanted to stop reading. This is a topic I have a passion for, you see. But then Shultz drops this gem on the table, "I had a theory that the September 11th attacks was the cause, with the Academy acting as an agent of escapism in a time awash with terror. And it's true, our society has watered down significantly since that awful day in 2001, but at the same time, the Academy has always been an agent of escapism and champion of the feel-good movie's cause, dodging controversy at every turn..." (Shultz). Once you mention September 11th on American soil, there's a sudden change in atmosphere and there's almost no going back. Now, it seems that it may be directly responsible for why horror films don't win Oscars anymore. It's a really bold claim with no research put into it, but for some reason it is the ultimate kicker in this piece and it would've been much better had it been put somewhere in the beginning, but that would also mean the structure of  the chronological years that it is organized be compromised. So, it's bit hard to tell where it would be better off. There's other theories about the manner of course; the Academy favoring the bigger studios or the rules of what applies for a winner may have changed over the years,But the one we really don't want to believe takes the cake. 
With it's linear style and highly opinionated claims with little or no research to back it up, it's unclear how qualified the writer was to be presenting them but it is still a do-able read. The points are interesting, the facts are common knowledge for every horror fan or movie goer to recall, Nothing too powerful, but something to nod your head in thought to.