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.