WI: Horror films becomes a box-office staple

You make the comparison to other 'genre' films (fantasy, sci-fi, action) in the OP, but the key difference is that they trade in positive emotions— wonder, spectacle and adrenaline. They're escapist fantasies for people who want to forget about the world for a few hours; in contrast, horror films depict the the bleakest parts of the world. There's just not an appetite for that sort of thing amongst the general public on a continuous basis.

Do you remember the downer sci-fi boom of the late 60s to the early 70s before Star Wars. Films like Soylent Green, Planet of the Apes (1968), Silent Running, Rollerball, Phase IV and other films. They had downbeat endings and a rather bleak endings. Yet they were box office successes despite of it.

Science fiction, fantasy and action films do not need to trade in positive emotions like wonder, spectacle and adrenaline. They can create bleak atmospheres and depressing plots. Take Nier for example, at first glance, it's a fantasy story about a father fighting monsters in attempt to find a cure for his sick daughter. Then you play more of its endings and then your realize how depressing the plot is.

Another example would be Man of Steel. Despite being a Superman film, it's actually a frightening film when you think about it. The horrific applications of superpowers, the devastation brought by superhumans fighting each other, the suffering of civilians during alien attacks, the desperation of a good person and the realistic exploration of superheroes in a mundane world.

On the other hand...

This is a movie that was somewhat more accessible to a family audience, and stayed away from morally twisted themes, in favour of a straight-ahead, old-school ghost story, albeit one delivered with hair-raising state-of-the-art special effects. I also seem to recall a body count of zero, and, with the exception of one gory hallucination, no extended scenes of harm to humans.

This is strangely familiar - you made essentially the same thread here six months ago:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ahc-make-big-budget-horror-movies-possible.456758/

And the counterarguments are the same - family-friendly non-bloody non-scary horror is difficult to pull off.

It was an interesting conversation, so I decided to spin it off.

Family-friendly, non-bloody horror that is scary is actually not difficult to pull off.

Watch Coraline, The Watcher in the Woods, Paranorman and The Witches are scary not because of blood and gore, but because the effective use of clever writing and suspense.
 
Do you remember the downer sci-fi boom of the late 60s to the early 70s before Star Wars. Films like Soylent Green, Planet of the Apes (1968), Silent Running, Rollerball, Phase IV and other films. They had downbeat endings and a rather bleak endings. Yet they were box office successes despite of it.

Science fiction, fantasy and action films do not need to trade in positive emotions like wonder, spectacle and adrenaline. They can create bleak atmospheres and depressing plots. Take Nier for example, at first glance, it's a fantasy story about a father fighting monsters in attempt to find a cure for his sick daughter. Then you play more of its endings and then your realize how depressing the plot is.

Another example would be Man of Steel. Despite being a Superman film, it's actually a frightening film when you think about it. The horrific applications of superpowers, the devastation brought by superhumans fighting each other, the suffering of civilians during alien attacks, the desperation of a good person and the realistic exploration of superheroes in a mundane world.

It's not that science fiction, fantasy or action need to be positive; it's that those are the sort of films that light up the charts. George Lucas found fame with Star Wars, not THX-1138 (great film, incidentally). Like I said, it comes down to escapism, and providing light entertainment, spectacle and thrills. It's not some fluke of history that sci-fi and fantasy dominate the box office while horror languishes— it has everything to do with how the genre is (or is not) a vector for escapist fare.

Your counter-examples really only back up what I'm saying. Soylent Green et al predate the advent of the modern blockbuster, so aren't really a model to look to. Nier is a niche game that sold poorly. Man of Steel was a success, but had a mixed reception precisely because it was seen as too bleak and violent.
 
It's not that science fiction, fantasy or action need to be positive; it's that those are the sort of films that light up the charts. George Lucas found fame with Star Wars, not THX-1138 (great film, incidentally). Like I said, it comes down to escapism, and providing light entertainment, spectacle and thrills. It's not some fluke of history that sci-fi and fantasy dominate the box office while horror languishes— it has everything to do with how the genre is (or is not) a vector for escapist fare.

I can't be resorting to ASBs in this timeline. The whole point of the discussion was an alternate timeline where horror genre and its relatives are prime blockbuster material with lavish budgets like The Avengers, filled with an all-star cast and directed by reputable directors. Imagine I had to create a PoD where the science fiction/fantasy genre is relegated to animated films.
 
The horror genre is considered the black sheep of the pantheon of Hollywood genres. Films of that genre ended up as marginalized second-rate B-movies done with low budgets and sub-par talent. Those films were filled with cheesy special effects and hammy acting. Due to the Production Code, many films had to stray from dark, taboo and trangressive themes as well with showing of graphic violence and other scares.

The perception of the genre continues today. Horror films are underrepresented in the Academy Awards compared to science fiction and fantasy. Many major stars do not get roles in horror because of the lack of recognition and career potential. Most films of this genre are critically derided by film critics and reviewers.

The thing is that horror is a staple of Hollywood and often pretty profitable, that's why they keep making so many of them. Science Fiction and Fantasy are not well represented at the Oscars, more often than not relegated to the technical categories. As for the critical response, sure critics hate cookie cutter slasher films, but they have given good reviews to original and well made Horror films over the years. Also some of the best horror films have been those that avoided the cheap 'jump scares' and gore. Short version I think you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
 
Top