AHC: Make big-budget horror movies possible

I've read many horror movies are low budget and have no big stars attached. This because the limited box office and major award potential combined with the low budgets and limited career potential of the film genre. Horror films get a bad reputation and get low reviews by critics and low box office by audiences.

But what if the horror genre became attractive enough to be summer entertainment, receive big budgets, get directed by reputable A-list directors, get high box office, attracts big stars and get good critical reviews.

Just imagine a horror genre version of Marvel's Marvel Cinematic Universe such as Universal Monsters. Imagine animated horror films by Disney, Pixar and other animation studios. Imagine horror monsters being popular with kids like superheroes.

Your goal, in this thread, is to make big-budget, all-star horror films possible in the alternate timeline with all the possible alternations as described above.
 
Honestly, The Exorcist helped open the door to higher budget horror during the era of New Horror, so find a way for studios to cash in on that
 
Honestly, The Exorcist helped open the door to higher budget horror during the era of New Horror, so find a way for studios to cash in on that

Maybe keep the auteur era of filmmaking going? I think it was around the time of The Shining and Altered States, which I sort of consider to be the last gasps for New Horror, that you started to see the revival of low-budget, testosterone-fueled slasher flicks, following on the heels of Halloween(which admittedly had come out a couple of years prior).

Of course, keeping the auteurs in business is easier said than done, and probably involves a lot of chicken-and-egg conundrums, eg. if George Lucas had died in a car crash after American Graffiti, would someone else just come along to drive the stake into the heart of the American New Wave?
 
Honestly, The Exorcist helped open the door to higher budget horror during the era of New Horror, so find a way for studios to cash in on that
From 1970 to 1976, space adventures were out of vogue because the reality of the moon landings were very tough acts to follow. Sci-fi went near term with The Six Million Dollar Man (and similar shows) and horror went to supernatural (Exorcist). For a short time, special effects horror came in style. Then in 1977, Star Wars broke the flood gates wide open for space adventures, soon followed by the Star Trek movie, Buck Rogers on TV, Battlestar Galactica, etc.
Just imagine a horror genre version of Marvel's Marvel Cinematic Universe such as Universal Monsters. Imagine animated horror films by Disney, Pixar and other animation studios. Imagine horror monsters being popular with kids like superheroes.
Actually, the comic book stories do have elements of horror. It's just that they don't claim the casting and drama of high-budget productions because they are associated with a lower level of fantasy. For whatever reason, the public accepts the latest Star Wars installment as more dramatic even though it is, essentially, fantasy.
 
I think the fundamental problem is that horror films tend to be 18+ / R, which limits the audience. Not necessarily - The Sixth Sense and The Others etc had milder ratings, and of course Watership Down was a U. There's also the separate "ghost film" genre that tends to be more mellow.

If you tone down the horror you end up with something like Aliens or The Dark Knight, e.g. an action film with elements of horror, in which case it becomes a matter of definition. I think the horror film is always going to be a niche in the same way that gangster films will always be a niche; the most effective tend to have brutal bloody violence or something, which limits the audience to adults.

Of course lots of adults go to the cinema, but they generally don't buy the toys! And that's what matters nowadays.

On a tangent I've always assume that part of the reason for the "downer sci-fi" boom of the early-mid-1970s was the box office success of Planet of the Apes; in particular the combination of boffo box-office with a modest budget (unlike e.g. 2001, which grossed more but cost a fortune). Combine that with New Hollywood's tendency to make films that went nowhere and had downbeat endings, and you get Silent Running and Rollerball and A Boy and His Dog and Soylent Green etc etc. Phase IV, Zardoz etc. All of which were relatively cheap, and depressing. Logan's Run etc. The golden age of PG-rated nudity.
 
The Movie 2001 helped introduce the sci-fi downturn of the early seventies. With the actual moon landing, it was part of the one-two punch because it was set near term and nearly fifty years later, still represents the expected appearance of the first space stations with centrifugal pseudo-gravity and the first missions to the moons of Jupiter. The Planet of the Apes features represent a regression to a more primitive environment with time travel as the primary element of fantasy.
 
Here's an idea I had concerning George Lucas and a delayed star wars:

Lucas was intended to directed apocalypse now before Coppola took over.

Maybe he does and the long grueling shoot in the Philippines or vietnam even wears him out and he takes an extended vacation.

Maybe that could help?

I've got other ideas too. And I'm definitely planning on using this one soon
 
I thought Star Wars was, itself, a delayed effort to put dazzling special effects into a space adventure. Lucas wanted to do an updated Flash Gordon, but couldn't secure the license rights after a pornographic spoof "Flesh Gordon" was released in 1974 and the owners of Flash Gordon were sensitive over their intellectual property. Lucas needed his own story line; he didn't even announce Darth Vader as Luke's father until the second movie, The Empire Strikes Back.
 
I wonder if a proper Exorcist sequel would help the viability of horror in the mainstream. Give the reins for Exorcist II over to someone other than Boorman.
 
I wonder if a proper Exorcist sequel would help the viability of horror in the mainstream. Give the reins for Exorcist II over to someone other than Boorman.

I dunno. Boorman did some pretty iconic stuff over the years(adding "squeal like a pig" into the anglosphere's cultural vocabulary is no mean feat, seriously), I'm not sure if he can be blamed for the lacklustre nature of E2. The script for that movie basically just aped the original, only as psychotherapy instead of exorcism.

If you look at the other supposed "thinking man's horror films" from the same time, a lot of them were also pretty crappy. The Omen, for example, manages to combine Catholic imagery with Hal Linsdey theology.
 
I dunno. Boorman did some pretty iconic stuff over the years(adding "squeal like a pig" into the anglosphere's cultural vocabulary is no mean feat, seriously), I'm not sure if he can be blamed for the lacklustre nature of E2. The script for that movie basically just aped the original, only as psychotherapy instead of exorcism.

If you look at the other supposed "thinking man's horror films" from the same time, a lot of them were also pretty crappy. The Omen, for example, manages to combine Catholic imagery with Hal Linsdey theology.

Boorman is on record hating the original Exorcist and did his best to best to wipe out the Christian elements and focus on other aspects of Goodhart's script. He was the last person I would've considered for directing its sequel.
 
I would question whether you need a big budget for horror at all.
A lot of horror is about dissimulation and the fear for the characters. Big names probably won't want anything too humiliating/which puts them in a bad light.
If it's to watch Tom Cruise run and punch CGI monsters in broad daylight, there's less appeal compared to something more low key.
Actually, the only horror movie with a big name in it is the Lady in Black with Radcliffe or the Others with Nicole Kindman
 
My Idea:
In the seventies, United Artists should purchase all the film and television rights of Stephen King's works during Carrie (1976). John Boorman should not direct and alter the script of The Exorcist II: The Heretic and have another director take the helm. Ridley Scott should use the merchandise rights of Alien to produce merchandise for kids such as Xenomorph action figures, a Nostromo playset, lunch boxes and other stuff.

In the eighties, New Line Cinema should give a higher budget for A Nightmare on Elm Street by Wes Craven which is 50 million dollars to make room for better special effects and elaborate nightmare sets. At this time, horror films should take the opportunity to cast in big name actors such as Harrison Ford and Robert De Niro.
 
A Nightmare on Elm Street
That's a slasher film, not genuine horror.

You want, frex, "Nosferatu", or the smart vampire film where Nosferatu plays himself in the movie.

Or you want "Alien" set in an office building, with a demon instead of an alien.

I agree, big budget isn't essential to box office success. Smart, atmospheric directing & a top quality script (which is essential, & all too rare) will do it, given remotely good casting (also important, I'll allow).

"Sixth Sense" didn't cost a fortune. It worked. (It didn't need Bruce Willis, either.)
 
The problem with a big budget is that you need a big return to make a profit.

If you are going for strict "horror", rather than "film with horror elements", then I doubt that you will get enough people to watch it to make a profit.
 

DougM

Donor
First off Horror row does not need (in general) the budget of a sci fi or Super Hero movie as the scope is usually not as large and they don’t need as much expensive special effects work.
Add in that horror works better if you believe that anyone can buy the farm at any time and horror tends to work better without big name actors. As studios and actors and audiences tend to get upset if the person they paid to act/see in the movie is called off in the first reel.
What Horror needs is a director with a clear vision a writer with a good script just enough budget to pull it off and a studio that lets the first two do Thier jobs.
But with the way everyone is sticking Thier noses into everyone else’s work. Directors telling the writers what to do. And studios telling both the writers and directors what to do and you just have a mess that has no vision.
You can remake Dracula all you want. It will NEVER EVER work as a true horror movie again. Because everyone on Earth has an understanding of the basic elements of the story. And surprise and confusion are key elements of horror. If you change Frankenstein enough to get that uncertainty back then you have modified it so much it is no longer Frankenstein and thus you lose the audience but without modifying it you don’t have horror.
You may be able to make a “slasher” type “shock” movie with jump scares and such but not the traditional horror element. And Thier is a difference. Friday the Thirteenth part 397 “works” because even though everyone understands the basic way the movie will go the disgusting special effects and the jump scares are such that you still get the effect of the slasher type scary movie. But pure horro works differently.
This is why the first Predator movie worked better then the rest. You didn’t completely understand what was going on at the time. But once you truly knew what the Predator was it was no longer as effective
Alien and Aliens got around this buy the first one being the “Horror” movie and the second being the “Kill the monster” movie. In effect they are the first and second acts of a single move. Act one you learn what the horror is. Act two you eliminate the horror. That is why the rest of the movies in that series never had a chance (well that and because they sucked)

So in a way we have seen large budget Horror movies over the years. But the horror eliminates are toned down a bit for general consumption and with big beamed actors you knew who was going to live thus limiting the horror elements even more. But basically Alien, Predator and even Terminator are basically traditional horror movies modified for a wider audience.

I think Horror tends to attract younger audiences but with modern effects it usually gets a higher rating so it has to be toned down to get enough folks to see it to justify its budget. Or it needs to be very original and creativity and originality are not something the modern studios are interested in. So until Hollywood finds some creativity horror is going to be limited to low budget slasher flicks.
 
Last edited:
Top