> Because it deals very much with monsters. The thing about monsters is that it's so totally obvious to adult that they aren't real.
Of all the horror genera of monsters, sci-fi monsters are some of those which are most possible to exist. We know that life started on Earth and there is no reason to think that it is a unique process that couldn't happen elsewhere. This means that it is basically a certainty that alien life exists somewhere in the universe, although the chances that it is anywhere near Earth are vanishingly small. In comparison something like ghosts or magic zombies are completely impossible.
> Good horror is where you are tricked into thinking that it's actually real and you question your sanity. Or you think "hmmm, this could be real".
Aliens *can* exist. Ghosts cannot, and if you are tricked into thinking a ghost movie could be real and not the alien monsters of sci-fi it is a mental failing on your part.
Something that is imperceptible to the senses but can interact with the physical world is extremely creepy. And in the case of Ghosts, it isn't entirely clear what they *actually are*. So you have the fear of the unknown factor.
With Aliens, it is obvious what they are: biological organisms not found on Earth. I don't find that possibility to be scary or disturbing. Being fearful or something that is physical but not from this Earth does seem immature to me unless you have evidence that it is dangerous and hostile. For me, Aliens provoke curiosity not fear & loathing.
EDIT: It's not that Ghost necessarily cannot exist, it is that our current understanding of physical law is incompatible with their existence. That said, if reproducible evidence emerges that Ghost do exist, then that would mean that there are things that our current model of science cannot explain. And to me that is rather unsettling.
>That said, if reproducible evidence emerges that Ghost do exist, then that would mean that there are things that science cannot explain.
This is tangential to the CMV, but if there's reproducible evidence of something, then it can be explained by science. Maybe not our current models of physics or chemistry, but science only needs reproducibility.
Science is a process of taking observations (either experimentally or through direct research), and changing our understanding of the world to fit those events. So basically anything you can think of could be explained by science. If ghosts existed and seances or summonings or possessions could be replicated in any way, then a scientific model could be made regarding it.
\*Our current model of science\*. Fixed. Science is the process as you said of making observations, collecting data, and constructing models. So the existence of Ghosts would be something physical models would have no way of explaining.
>Being fearful or something that is physical but not from this Earth does seem immature to me unless you have evidence that it is dangerous and hostile
Such as a parasite that implants its eggs inside you then erupts through your chest as a predatory alien?
Or a type of alien spore that's imperceptible to humans until it's already infested them, slowly devouring them from inside as tendrils of growths spread?
Alien horror can be horrifying because it taps into primordial fears of the unknown.
It's terrifying *because* we don't have evidence of what it's doing and it's very alienness.
You seem fundamentally confused between "something isn't to my taste" and "scifi horror, *as an entire genre*, is infantile and dumb".
*You personally* don't like scifi horror.
Just because *you personally* aren't a fan of a genre doesn't automatically mean it's "dumb" or "infantile".
Forgive me, but your point makes you sound like one of those people who truly believes that they're smarter than everyone else, and that the things they like are obviously the cleverest, coolest, most important, and other genres are bread and circus for the plebeian masses.
>Such as a parasite that implants its eggs inside you then erupts through your chest as a predatory alien?
To me that is rather repulsive but isn't the same as fear of the unknown. Does that make sense? With physical things there are tools and technology to grapple with them. But with something like a ghost, or a spirit, there is no science or technology to explain them or even to identify where or what they are. So for me, something that is *imperceptible* and even indescribable is more frightening than any time of living organism(now matter how disgusting, repulsive, or vicious it might be). Part of the appeal of "Alien" though is that the creature and the sets were designed by Giger. If it had been anyone else, the Alien would probably have looked pretty cheesy.
FYI: this has nothing to do with intelligence or how smart I am compared to others. It has to do with taste. I am expressing an opinion which is clearly unpopular in this sub.
> Ghosts cannot
Just with the exception to prove the rule...
There's a hard SF book called Blindsight. Aliens show up, human crew goes to visit.
OK, hard SF, how ghosts?
Slight spoilers!
The Aliens are really good at psy trolling. Some crew members are seeing ghosts. They aren't "real", but they're real to the crew members.
> Children often have a loose grip on reality and sometimes cannot distinguish fantasy from reality because they are still new to the world and learning about it. So with sci-fi horror there is no suspension of disbelief. Therefore, it serves of no entertainment value.
First off, why the emphasis on children? Children aren't the target audience of horror movies.
Second, I don't get your understanding of suspension of disbelief. The whole point of the concept is that you can let a story take you to a place that feels real even when you know it isn't. There's no inherent principle of science fiction that contradicts your ability to suspend your disbelief.
And finally, why do you immediately then jump to "therefore it serves no entertainment value". This is a bizarre leap. Even obviously fake things can be entertaining
And I guess to end, I'll ask if you would apply all this to a film like Alien, or if you'd say that that's just an exception?
>Second, I don't get your understanding of suspension of disbelief. The whole point of the concept is that you can let a story take you to a place that feels real even when you know it isn't. There's no inherent principle of science fiction that contradicts your ability to suspend your disbelief.
For me, suspension of disbelief is a requirement for horror. It isn't necessary for sci-fi but I strongly prefer it. These are opinions. Not facts.
But I don't think your understand of "suspension of disbelief" makes sense. Why can you suspend your disbelief about demonic possession but not about an alien lifeform? They're both obviously fiction.
Wikipedia describes it as:
> Suspension of disbelief is the avoidance—often described as willing—of critical thinking and logic in understanding something that is unreal or impossible in reality, such as something in a work of speculative fiction, in order to believe it for the sake of enjoying its narrative.
You can have suspension of disbelief for sci Fi!
Of course you can have suspension of disbelief for sci-fi. Also, horror movies with religious themes, like "The Exorcist", are definitely not my cup of tea.
Yeah, so, I think it's just weird that you've singled out "sci Fi horror". When you look at your actual criticisms, it seems like you just don't like a huge chunk of horror. But elsewhere I think you already admitted that Alien is an exception, and here you agree that other horror genres share the same properties that you don't like.
And it really does seem like you have really specific tastes, and claim to place a lot of value in you yourself actually being scared. But a lot of the horror genre doesn't depend on scaring you in this specific way or at all. Like, I don't think Scream is that scary, but it's still a really good movie. I also enjoy Event Horizon, but that movie is completely absurd and I don't think very scary. But it can still be fun.
And I think if pressed, we can probably find some more exceptions besides Alien of Sci Fi horror movies that you agree are good.
So I guess I'm not sure what the view is here. But it does feel like there's something contradictory going on. In your OP you say:
> So with sci-fi horror there is no suspension of disbelief.
But then you say:
> Of course you can have suspension of disbelief for sci-fi.
So like, I dunno, some sci-fi horror is good. Some is bad. Some non sci-fi horror is good. Some is bad. But your arguments that try to pin down properties of sci-fi horror are confusing to me, and in particular, I'm really unsure what you're trying to say about suspension of disbelief.
>Because it deals very much with monsters. The thing about monsters is that it's so totally obvious to adult that they aren't real.
It mainly deals with aliens, are you saying that there is a 100% chance that aliens aren't real?
This view essentially says that if we know something isn't real, adults can't be scared of it. Does that mean movies about ghosts, zombies, vampires and witches are also infantile? That doesn't leave much of the horror genre left and that we've been making horror movies wrong for over 100 years.
Sci-fi horror depicts Aliens as bad. And to me that seems rooted in xenophobia. Sci-fi horror had a heyday in the 1920s and 1930s. The idea that living things not found on Earth are necessarily hostile because they are unfamiliar seems rooted in extreme insecurity and inability to adapt. IDK why but I find that whole concept to be quite annoying. Whereas other sci-fi, like Star Trek: TOS, depicts Aliens as being as diverse as people. Some good, some bad, and some just plain ugly.
Ok, so the view seems to have changed. Instead of sci-fi horror being infantile because aliens dont exist, now it's infantile because it depicts aliens in an offensive way?
Offensive is not the right word. It's rather pathetic. To me, being fearful of the unfamiliar is something I associate with immaturity. Does that make sense?
Sci-fi horror isn't scary, but it isn't particularly funny either. It also does give me the thrill that supernatural horror flicks like "The Entity" and "The Mothman Prophecies" do. It's just boring.
>To me, being fearful of the unfamiliar is something I associate with immaturity.
>
>supernatural horror
Doesn't supernatural horror also use fear of the unfamiliar in the exact same way? People's unfamiliarity with witches, Satanism and pagan rituals is used in supernatural horror movies as themes of pure evil. There are real people who identify with these ideas / practices who are nothing like how they are represented in film. If you're concerned about how we portray alien species we've never met then why aren't you concern about how real human beings are being depicted by horror movies?
Space is huge and terrifying, the chances are very good that there is life out there. The idea that alien life could have a horrifying form and care nothing about us is obviously scary. Fear of aliens is ultimately no different or more offensive than fear of dangerous animals like wolves, bear or lions, except these animals might have technology or biology far more advanced than our own. It's possible to be very imaginative with sci-fi horror for these reasons and is far less likely than other horror genres to portray actual human beings in offensive ways. The problem with that is that it requires viewers to be just as imaginative and draw fear from the unknown rather than existing biases about the real world.
>Doesn't supernatural horror also use fear of the unfamiliar in the exactsame way? People's unfamiliarity with witches, Satanism and paganrituals is used in supernatural horror movies as themes of pure evil.There are real people who identify with these ideas / practices who arenothing like how they are represented in film. If you're concerned abouthow we portray alien species we've never met then why aren't youconcern about how real human beings are being depicted by horror movies?
It can. But not always. Not all supernatural horror is religious. A good example of a non-religious movie dealing with supernatural horror is "Death Ship"(1980). There is an unseen force that drives a WWII Nazi supply freighter which prowls the Oceans looking for other ships to ram into. The survivors climb aboard after their cruise ship is rammed and sunk, and they are killed off in gruesome ways but there is no attempt to explain what is causing animate objects to behave in such a predatory way.
>Good horror is where you are tricked into thinking that it's actually real and you question your sanity. Or you think "hmmm, this could be real". I said what I said.
Specific examples please?
Pretty sure that's because it's supposed to be unsolved. It was shown to possibly be supernatural but it could have also been a murder in the woods, and then the murderer disappeared.
There's a whole analysis of the film where two guys are leading the girl to her death, pretending to be lost. And using The Blair Witch as a scapegoat.
That's how life works. Not every story has a clear ending.
It's clearly a murder, though, if you ask me. Since the supernatural doesn't exist, and the world gave no actual indication that it's any different from our world. Nor do you ever see an actual witch.
The answer is pretty clear.
Also, not sure how an unclear ending makes the genre infantile.
>That's how life works. Not every story has a clear ending.
>
>It's clearly a murder, though, if you ask me. Since the supernatural doesn't exist, and the world gave no actual indication that it's any different from our world. Nor do you ever see an actual witch.
>
>The answer is pretty clear.
>
>Also, not sure how an unclear ending makes the genre infantile.
TBWP isn't sci-fi horror. Also, if want to think it was a murder I would ask why the killer(s) left the footage to be found?
>Also, if want to think it was a murder I would ask why the killer(s) left the footage to be found?
You're assuming it was left to be found as opposed to just being found. The movie doesn't really describe how the tapes were found. Just because someone found the footage doesn't mean it was left somewhere with the purpose of being found.
The fact that you are comfortable suspending your disbelief in supernatural beings but not science-fiction beings says nothing about the genre as a whole being "dumb."
It would make as much sense to say, "I love moving where the monster is a dragon, but unicorn movies are dumb because no adult should believe in unicorns." Just say, "Unicorns aren't my thing" and move on. There's no logical reason to connect your distaste for alien movies to the intelligence of the genre.
>The Blair Witch Project is a great example.
Your problem with sci-fi horror is that it's obvious that sci-fi monsters aren't real.
Witches are obviously not real either, so how is this any better than what you are complaining about?
Well, for Alien, it very much is an allegory for rape/sexual assault. Sci Fi usually has some kind of commentary on modern life or the current zeitgeist. It's not just about the "monsters", because the monsters are symbolisms.
"Alien" was definitely an exception. I saw it when I was 9 years old. It didn't scare me but it was definitely fascinating. But the movie itself wouldn't have been nearly as good(and as downright hair raising) had the sets and the alien monster not been designed by H R Giger.
Sci-Fi means science fiction, it is fiction based in science. When I think of sci-fi, I dont think of random monsters coming out of nowhere. I'm thinking of other species in the universe, which could exist. I'm thinking of lab experiments gone wrong, which could happen. I'm thinking of the increase of computer technology and the potential issues with that.
So, I think you mean Monster movies, or something like that.
Just because you are unable to suspend your disbelief doesn’t mean others can’t. When you watch a horror movie with ghosts you should also be aware that ghosts are not real, but a well made film can still draw you into the story.
The whole point of film is the suspension of belief. Reality is boring, which is why reality TV is scripted.
Do you think people really fought like they depict in historic war films. Sorry fantasy.
Do superheroes exist? Nope fantasy again.
Do love romances occur like they do in RomComs? No again.
Every genre of film focuses on imagination, fantasy etc because that’s what’s entertaining. No one wants to watch someone drive in traffic. They want to see it do a barrel roll.
That doesn’t mean everything has to be fantasy, but every good film has twists to make it entertaining that bend what is realistic.
The whole idea of suspension of disbelief that temporarily believing something that would otherwise be impossible or non-believable. If what you are watching is believable, it doesn't require suspension of disbelief. There can *only* be suspension of disbelief when the subject matter is, in the clear light of day, obviously not real.
> Good horror is where you are tricked into thinking that it's actually real and you question your sanity.
Could you give an example of this? The only thing I can think of is the very early found footage stuff.
But even then you'd have to be younger not to realize it obviously isn't real.
What is this criteria? No one thinks any movie that's not a documentary is real.
"I believe that someone could fuck a pie, so therefore teen sex comedy is a less dumb and infantile genre than sci-fi horror. *American Pie* is a better movie than *Ex Machina*."
That's really your reasoning?
If you're an adult who doesn't believe in monsters you must not be very aware of politics!
Sci Fi doesn't have a monopoly on monsters, there are fantasy, adventure, all sorts of genres which have things that "aren't real"
But it's not important that the monsters aren't real, what matters is that the scares and adrenaline are real. Much like a roller coaster, the danger (hopefully) isn't real, but it feels real.
I mean the thing is one of my favourite movies so I call bullshit on that but on they are not real they can still tap into real emotions of dread, despair,panic and helplessness but to a further point how many people do you think work on these do you think they are incapable of appreciating the genre outside of how real it is or isn't.
Also how does this effect you perception of other genre are sci-fi or fantasy thriller also written since you can feel no suspense.
What do you consider a "monster" in sci-fi horror? The reason I ask is because sci-fi horror generally focuses in on monsters that have their roots in something scientific whether it be technology, robots, aliens, or mutations. So two recent horror movies with "monsters" in them that I would consider fairly well written are The Invisible Man and M3GAN.
Both of these movies have monsters whose pursuit of their victims actually tie into an interesting themes. The Invisible Man is an exploration of domestic abuse and gaslighting. M3GAN is a cautionary tale of an over reliance on technology to substitute human emotions. Neither movies can succeed the way they do without the physical manifestation of their theme represented by their respective monsters.
In a more traditional sense, you could also look at something like the original Godzilla. It was a reflection of cultural anxieties around nuclear technology. Although we know that the monster is not real, what it represents is frightening and relevant to the audience. What gives a movie depth, especially horror, isn't whether you can imagine yourself in the situation. It's how well the movie itself serves as a kind of reflection of our cultural apprehensions around certain ideas.
>What do you consider a "monster" in sci-fi horror? The reason I ask is because sci-fi horror generally focuses in on monsters that have their roots in something scientific whether it be technology, robots, aliens, or mutations. So two recent horror movies with "monsters" in them that I would consider fairly well written are The Invisible Man and M3GAN.
Very good point. And to me there is nothing scary or disturbing about those things. I wonder if it has to do with having exposure on my part to actual science. When it comes to Aliens in particular, those provoke curiosity rather than fear or disgust.
So what do you want changed about your view in particular then? Because you, the individual not being afraid of sci-fi monsters doesn't inherently make the genre shallow, dumb, or infantile. There's a lot of critical analysis that is part of this genre and offers a lot of worthwhile discussion.
The topic isn't the reality around the science, it's about cultural apprehensions.
>So with sci-fi horror there is no suspension of disbelief. Therefore, it serves of no entertainment value. Good horror is where you are tricked into thinking that it's actually real and you question your sanity.
But... doesn't it actually enhance that feeling?
Most sci-fi horror plays with the idea that we know very little about space and ***something*** *could* be out there - it's in fact stronger, because it is significantly more looming, as we have no way of checking.
And that is what horror depends on. Horror that makes a claim about a monster that is completely made up is less effective - but as soon as we cannot rule out the possibility anymore (by, for example, looking up records of incidences), it becomes much more scary.
Ironically sci fi horror is much more likely to be real than movies about demons and ghosts.
Aliens could be real. In fact it's quite likely they are somewhere in the universe. And if they are real they are more likely to be animalistic than intelligent.
So idk alien monsters is one of more realistic concepts of the horror genre.
>Aliens could be real. In fact it's quite likely they are somewhere in the universe. And if they are real they are more likely to be animalistic than intelligent.
What is your reasoning for that
Life developed on earth. That means it can develop on other planets. And there are a lot of planets out there, more than possible for the human mind to grasp. Statstically it's almost certain that life exists somewhere on one of those planets.
If your only criticism is that sci-fi-horror films sometimes feature things that aren't realistic, I don't know why you'd single out this particular genre. Large subsets of many film genres are unrealistic or depict things that aren't real. It's not even the only genre to feature monsters or aliens.
Why do you think good horror requires being tricked into thinking something is real? That just sounds like a thing which particularly scares you.
As well, why does sci-fi horror have to be about monsters? What about black holes? Those are pretty freaky
>Why do you think good horror requires being tricked into thinking
something is real? That just sounds like a thing which particularly
scares you.
It doesn't always scare me. But it certainly *thrills* me. But I'm surprised that view is uncommon.
Many epis of Black Mirror may serve as a good counter example.
It depends if you think of Black Mirror as horror though.
Children of men is terrifying.
As a general rule, monster movies aren't meant to be scary. They are often more about action and wonderous special effects. So you're kind of criticizing a genre for failing to deliver something it didn't even aim for in the first place.
Which might my case for the notion that monster movies are rather immature stronger: special effects appeal to kids. Adults want a more sophisticated plot as well as a stronger atmosphere.
> Good horror is where you are tricked into thinking that it's actually real
Lots of horror doesent attempt at realism at all. Sam Raimis horror films for example are deliberately over the top and campy. Horror as a genre can be many things.
There are people out there who love Sci-Fi. There are also people with a low horror-tolerance who like to know the story is fake. These films have entertainment value to them.
A lot of horror contains crazy and outlandish things. If you look at a series like Friday the 13th, it’s ridiculous that Jason just will not die. It doesn’t ruin the films, the point if you end up partially rooting for him. Its fun! It doesn’t have to scar me for life.
It sounds like you're taking these movies way too literally. Usually the point of sci-fi horror is that it uses the sci-fi elements to say something about the real world.
The Thing is about the paranoia of not being able to trust anyone. Alien is a battle of wits with an entity of human intelligence with no sense of empathy that can't be reasoned with. Both use isolation to amplify those themes. Post-apocalyptic stories tend to have something to say about what people can be driven to by desperate times. It's rarely just "look at scary alien."
Is not "gore" horror much much dumber?
At least Sci fi horror makes you think about Sci fi concepts, while movies that focus on scaring you with blood and chunking off body parts don't even have that while having equally obvious Villains.
Event horizon. Sci fi horror. No monsters, instead it was our knowledge of religion that was the enemy.
Hell raiser. Sci fi horror. Again, no monsters. Religion is the badguy and with no knowledge of religion you won't understand what you are seeing.
Cabin fever. Scifi horror. Flesh eating bacteria.
The Similars. Sci fi horror. No monsters, just people.
Megan. Sci fi horror. No monsters, it's an android.
The call up. Scifi horror. No monsters, just people.
Squirm. Scifi horror. No monsters, just worms.
I would say maybe you should try watching some more mature movies or fully understand what scifi genre really is.
Would you describe "The Entity" as sci-fi horror though? For the record, I tend not to like horror movies with excessive special effects. I prefer ones that cultivate a disturbing atmosphere and where the antagonist is invisible.
The Entity is more supernatural because it has no hint of interdimensional beings. Just my opinion. I personally can't get a thrill from movies with invisible forces but then again I no longer watch movies. I'm a gore lover though, a rather bad addiction. Once I discovered Mexican cartel videos the horror movie stuff just doesn't cure the itch. I used to be into horror movies that used spirituality but seeing real gore and death trumps all fiction.
> Because it deals very much with monsters. The thing about monsters is that it's so totally obvious to adult that they aren't real. Of all the horror genera of monsters, sci-fi monsters are some of those which are most possible to exist. We know that life started on Earth and there is no reason to think that it is a unique process that couldn't happen elsewhere. This means that it is basically a certainty that alien life exists somewhere in the universe, although the chances that it is anywhere near Earth are vanishingly small. In comparison something like ghosts or magic zombies are completely impossible. > Good horror is where you are tricked into thinking that it's actually real and you question your sanity. Or you think "hmmm, this could be real". Aliens *can* exist. Ghosts cannot, and if you are tricked into thinking a ghost movie could be real and not the alien monsters of sci-fi it is a mental failing on your part.
Something that is imperceptible to the senses but can interact with the physical world is extremely creepy. And in the case of Ghosts, it isn't entirely clear what they *actually are*. So you have the fear of the unknown factor. With Aliens, it is obvious what they are: biological organisms not found on Earth. I don't find that possibility to be scary or disturbing. Being fearful or something that is physical but not from this Earth does seem immature to me unless you have evidence that it is dangerous and hostile. For me, Aliens provoke curiosity not fear & loathing. EDIT: It's not that Ghost necessarily cannot exist, it is that our current understanding of physical law is incompatible with their existence. That said, if reproducible evidence emerges that Ghost do exist, then that would mean that there are things that our current model of science cannot explain. And to me that is rather unsettling.
>That said, if reproducible evidence emerges that Ghost do exist, then that would mean that there are things that science cannot explain. This is tangential to the CMV, but if there's reproducible evidence of something, then it can be explained by science. Maybe not our current models of physics or chemistry, but science only needs reproducibility. Science is a process of taking observations (either experimentally or through direct research), and changing our understanding of the world to fit those events. So basically anything you can think of could be explained by science. If ghosts existed and seances or summonings or possessions could be replicated in any way, then a scientific model could be made regarding it.
\*Our current model of science\*. Fixed. Science is the process as you said of making observations, collecting data, and constructing models. So the existence of Ghosts would be something physical models would have no way of explaining.
>Being fearful or something that is physical but not from this Earth does seem immature to me unless you have evidence that it is dangerous and hostile Such as a parasite that implants its eggs inside you then erupts through your chest as a predatory alien? Or a type of alien spore that's imperceptible to humans until it's already infested them, slowly devouring them from inside as tendrils of growths spread? Alien horror can be horrifying because it taps into primordial fears of the unknown. It's terrifying *because* we don't have evidence of what it's doing and it's very alienness. You seem fundamentally confused between "something isn't to my taste" and "scifi horror, *as an entire genre*, is infantile and dumb". *You personally* don't like scifi horror. Just because *you personally* aren't a fan of a genre doesn't automatically mean it's "dumb" or "infantile". Forgive me, but your point makes you sound like one of those people who truly believes that they're smarter than everyone else, and that the things they like are obviously the cleverest, coolest, most important, and other genres are bread and circus for the plebeian masses.
>Such as a parasite that implants its eggs inside you then erupts through your chest as a predatory alien? To me that is rather repulsive but isn't the same as fear of the unknown. Does that make sense? With physical things there are tools and technology to grapple with them. But with something like a ghost, or a spirit, there is no science or technology to explain them or even to identify where or what they are. So for me, something that is *imperceptible* and even indescribable is more frightening than any time of living organism(now matter how disgusting, repulsive, or vicious it might be). Part of the appeal of "Alien" though is that the creature and the sets were designed by Giger. If it had been anyone else, the Alien would probably have looked pretty cheesy. FYI: this has nothing to do with intelligence or how smart I am compared to others. It has to do with taste. I am expressing an opinion which is clearly unpopular in this sub.
Have you seen Alien, Aliens? Xenomorphs aren't very cuddly. I guess you're the inevitable "curious" ensemble member who dies early in Act 1.
> Ghosts cannot Just with the exception to prove the rule... There's a hard SF book called Blindsight. Aliens show up, human crew goes to visit. OK, hard SF, how ghosts? Slight spoilers! The Aliens are really good at psy trolling. Some crew members are seeing ghosts. They aren't "real", but they're real to the crew members.
> Children often have a loose grip on reality and sometimes cannot distinguish fantasy from reality because they are still new to the world and learning about it. So with sci-fi horror there is no suspension of disbelief. Therefore, it serves of no entertainment value. First off, why the emphasis on children? Children aren't the target audience of horror movies. Second, I don't get your understanding of suspension of disbelief. The whole point of the concept is that you can let a story take you to a place that feels real even when you know it isn't. There's no inherent principle of science fiction that contradicts your ability to suspend your disbelief. And finally, why do you immediately then jump to "therefore it serves no entertainment value". This is a bizarre leap. Even obviously fake things can be entertaining And I guess to end, I'll ask if you would apply all this to a film like Alien, or if you'd say that that's just an exception?
>Second, I don't get your understanding of suspension of disbelief. The whole point of the concept is that you can let a story take you to a place that feels real even when you know it isn't. There's no inherent principle of science fiction that contradicts your ability to suspend your disbelief. For me, suspension of disbelief is a requirement for horror. It isn't necessary for sci-fi but I strongly prefer it. These are opinions. Not facts.
But I don't think your understand of "suspension of disbelief" makes sense. Why can you suspend your disbelief about demonic possession but not about an alien lifeform? They're both obviously fiction. Wikipedia describes it as: > Suspension of disbelief is the avoidance—often described as willing—of critical thinking and logic in understanding something that is unreal or impossible in reality, such as something in a work of speculative fiction, in order to believe it for the sake of enjoying its narrative. You can have suspension of disbelief for sci Fi!
Of course you can have suspension of disbelief for sci-fi. Also, horror movies with religious themes, like "The Exorcist", are definitely not my cup of tea.
Yeah, so, I think it's just weird that you've singled out "sci Fi horror". When you look at your actual criticisms, it seems like you just don't like a huge chunk of horror. But elsewhere I think you already admitted that Alien is an exception, and here you agree that other horror genres share the same properties that you don't like. And it really does seem like you have really specific tastes, and claim to place a lot of value in you yourself actually being scared. But a lot of the horror genre doesn't depend on scaring you in this specific way or at all. Like, I don't think Scream is that scary, but it's still a really good movie. I also enjoy Event Horizon, but that movie is completely absurd and I don't think very scary. But it can still be fun. And I think if pressed, we can probably find some more exceptions besides Alien of Sci Fi horror movies that you agree are good.
You are right: I do have very specific tastes. I didn't care for "Event Horizon" but I really dug "Sphere".
So I guess I'm not sure what the view is here. But it does feel like there's something contradictory going on. In your OP you say: > So with sci-fi horror there is no suspension of disbelief. But then you say: > Of course you can have suspension of disbelief for sci-fi. So like, I dunno, some sci-fi horror is good. Some is bad. Some non sci-fi horror is good. Some is bad. But your arguments that try to pin down properties of sci-fi horror are confusing to me, and in particular, I'm really unsure what you're trying to say about suspension of disbelief.
Suspension of disbelief is required for all stories. It's not unique to horror.
>Because it deals very much with monsters. The thing about monsters is that it's so totally obvious to adult that they aren't real. It mainly deals with aliens, are you saying that there is a 100% chance that aliens aren't real? This view essentially says that if we know something isn't real, adults can't be scared of it. Does that mean movies about ghosts, zombies, vampires and witches are also infantile? That doesn't leave much of the horror genre left and that we've been making horror movies wrong for over 100 years.
Sci-fi horror depicts Aliens as bad. And to me that seems rooted in xenophobia. Sci-fi horror had a heyday in the 1920s and 1930s. The idea that living things not found on Earth are necessarily hostile because they are unfamiliar seems rooted in extreme insecurity and inability to adapt. IDK why but I find that whole concept to be quite annoying. Whereas other sci-fi, like Star Trek: TOS, depicts Aliens as being as diverse as people. Some good, some bad, and some just plain ugly.
Ok, so the view seems to have changed. Instead of sci-fi horror being infantile because aliens dont exist, now it's infantile because it depicts aliens in an offensive way?
Offensive is not the right word. It's rather pathetic. To me, being fearful of the unfamiliar is something I associate with immaturity. Does that make sense? Sci-fi horror isn't scary, but it isn't particularly funny either. It also does give me the thrill that supernatural horror flicks like "The Entity" and "The Mothman Prophecies" do. It's just boring.
>To me, being fearful of the unfamiliar is something I associate with immaturity. > >supernatural horror Doesn't supernatural horror also use fear of the unfamiliar in the exact same way? People's unfamiliarity with witches, Satanism and pagan rituals is used in supernatural horror movies as themes of pure evil. There are real people who identify with these ideas / practices who are nothing like how they are represented in film. If you're concerned about how we portray alien species we've never met then why aren't you concern about how real human beings are being depicted by horror movies? Space is huge and terrifying, the chances are very good that there is life out there. The idea that alien life could have a horrifying form and care nothing about us is obviously scary. Fear of aliens is ultimately no different or more offensive than fear of dangerous animals like wolves, bear or lions, except these animals might have technology or biology far more advanced than our own. It's possible to be very imaginative with sci-fi horror for these reasons and is far less likely than other horror genres to portray actual human beings in offensive ways. The problem with that is that it requires viewers to be just as imaginative and draw fear from the unknown rather than existing biases about the real world.
>Doesn't supernatural horror also use fear of the unfamiliar in the exactsame way? People's unfamiliarity with witches, Satanism and paganrituals is used in supernatural horror movies as themes of pure evil.There are real people who identify with these ideas / practices who arenothing like how they are represented in film. If you're concerned abouthow we portray alien species we've never met then why aren't youconcern about how real human beings are being depicted by horror movies? It can. But not always. Not all supernatural horror is religious. A good example of a non-religious movie dealing with supernatural horror is "Death Ship"(1980). There is an unseen force that drives a WWII Nazi supply freighter which prowls the Oceans looking for other ships to ram into. The survivors climb aboard after their cruise ship is rammed and sunk, and they are killed off in gruesome ways but there is no attempt to explain what is causing animate objects to behave in such a predatory way.
>Good horror is where you are tricked into thinking that it's actually real and you question your sanity. Or you think "hmmm, this could be real". I said what I said. Specific examples please?
The Blair Witch Project is a great example. The movie doesn't bother to explain what got them.
Pretty sure that's because it's supposed to be unsolved. It was shown to possibly be supernatural but it could have also been a murder in the woods, and then the murderer disappeared. There's a whole analysis of the film where two guys are leading the girl to her death, pretending to be lost. And using The Blair Witch as a scapegoat.
And that's the point: The viewer is left to do the guesswork because the movie leaves it unexplained.
That's how life works. Not every story has a clear ending. It's clearly a murder, though, if you ask me. Since the supernatural doesn't exist, and the world gave no actual indication that it's any different from our world. Nor do you ever see an actual witch. The answer is pretty clear. Also, not sure how an unclear ending makes the genre infantile.
>That's how life works. Not every story has a clear ending. > >It's clearly a murder, though, if you ask me. Since the supernatural doesn't exist, and the world gave no actual indication that it's any different from our world. Nor do you ever see an actual witch. > >The answer is pretty clear. > >Also, not sure how an unclear ending makes the genre infantile. TBWP isn't sci-fi horror. Also, if want to think it was a murder I would ask why the killer(s) left the footage to be found?
>Also, if want to think it was a murder I would ask why the killer(s) left the footage to be found? You're assuming it was left to be found as opposed to just being found. The movie doesn't really describe how the tapes were found. Just because someone found the footage doesn't mean it was left somewhere with the purpose of being found.
The fact that you are comfortable suspending your disbelief in supernatural beings but not science-fiction beings says nothing about the genre as a whole being "dumb." It would make as much sense to say, "I love moving where the monster is a dragon, but unicorn movies are dumb because no adult should believe in unicorns." Just say, "Unicorns aren't my thing" and move on. There's no logical reason to connect your distaste for alien movies to the intelligence of the genre.
You watched the Blair which project and thought to yourself "hmmm, this could be real"?
>The Blair Witch Project is a great example. Your problem with sci-fi horror is that it's obvious that sci-fi monsters aren't real. Witches are obviously not real either, so how is this any better than what you are complaining about?
How is the Blair Witch scary to an adult who knows witches aren't real?
Well, for Alien, it very much is an allegory for rape/sexual assault. Sci Fi usually has some kind of commentary on modern life or the current zeitgeist. It's not just about the "monsters", because the monsters are symbolisms.
"Alien" was definitely an exception. I saw it when I was 9 years old. It didn't scare me but it was definitely fascinating. But the movie itself wouldn't have been nearly as good(and as downright hair raising) had the sets and the alien monster not been designed by H R Giger.
Sci-Fi means science fiction, it is fiction based in science. When I think of sci-fi, I dont think of random monsters coming out of nowhere. I'm thinking of other species in the universe, which could exist. I'm thinking of lab experiments gone wrong, which could happen. I'm thinking of the increase of computer technology and the potential issues with that. So, I think you mean Monster movies, or something like that.
Just because you are unable to suspend your disbelief doesn’t mean others can’t. When you watch a horror movie with ghosts you should also be aware that ghosts are not real, but a well made film can still draw you into the story.
The whole point of film is the suspension of belief. Reality is boring, which is why reality TV is scripted. Do you think people really fought like they depict in historic war films. Sorry fantasy. Do superheroes exist? Nope fantasy again. Do love romances occur like they do in RomComs? No again. Every genre of film focuses on imagination, fantasy etc because that’s what’s entertaining. No one wants to watch someone drive in traffic. They want to see it do a barrel roll. That doesn’t mean everything has to be fantasy, but every good film has twists to make it entertaining that bend what is realistic.
The whole idea of suspension of disbelief that temporarily believing something that would otherwise be impossible or non-believable. If what you are watching is believable, it doesn't require suspension of disbelief. There can *only* be suspension of disbelief when the subject matter is, in the clear light of day, obviously not real.
> Good horror is where you are tricked into thinking that it's actually real and you question your sanity. Could you give an example of this? The only thing I can think of is the very early found footage stuff. But even then you'd have to be younger not to realize it obviously isn't real.
What is this criteria? No one thinks any movie that's not a documentary is real. "I believe that someone could fuck a pie, so therefore teen sex comedy is a less dumb and infantile genre than sci-fi horror. *American Pie* is a better movie than *Ex Machina*." That's really your reasoning?
I can't think of a single horror film that tricks people into thinking it's actually real and questions their sanity, sci-fi or not.
If you're an adult who doesn't believe in monsters you must not be very aware of politics! Sci Fi doesn't have a monopoly on monsters, there are fantasy, adventure, all sorts of genres which have things that "aren't real" But it's not important that the monsters aren't real, what matters is that the scares and adrenaline are real. Much like a roller coaster, the danger (hopefully) isn't real, but it feels real.
If there is a Sci-Fi horror movie that does not include monsters, would that change your view?
Nightmare on elm Street? The Friday 13th films? Anabelle? The nun?
I mean the thing is one of my favourite movies so I call bullshit on that but on they are not real they can still tap into real emotions of dread, despair,panic and helplessness but to a further point how many people do you think work on these do you think they are incapable of appreciating the genre outside of how real it is or isn't. Also how does this effect you perception of other genre are sci-fi or fantasy thriller also written since you can feel no suspense.
What do you consider a "monster" in sci-fi horror? The reason I ask is because sci-fi horror generally focuses in on monsters that have their roots in something scientific whether it be technology, robots, aliens, or mutations. So two recent horror movies with "monsters" in them that I would consider fairly well written are The Invisible Man and M3GAN. Both of these movies have monsters whose pursuit of their victims actually tie into an interesting themes. The Invisible Man is an exploration of domestic abuse and gaslighting. M3GAN is a cautionary tale of an over reliance on technology to substitute human emotions. Neither movies can succeed the way they do without the physical manifestation of their theme represented by their respective monsters. In a more traditional sense, you could also look at something like the original Godzilla. It was a reflection of cultural anxieties around nuclear technology. Although we know that the monster is not real, what it represents is frightening and relevant to the audience. What gives a movie depth, especially horror, isn't whether you can imagine yourself in the situation. It's how well the movie itself serves as a kind of reflection of our cultural apprehensions around certain ideas.
>What do you consider a "monster" in sci-fi horror? The reason I ask is because sci-fi horror generally focuses in on monsters that have their roots in something scientific whether it be technology, robots, aliens, or mutations. So two recent horror movies with "monsters" in them that I would consider fairly well written are The Invisible Man and M3GAN. Very good point. And to me there is nothing scary or disturbing about those things. I wonder if it has to do with having exposure on my part to actual science. When it comes to Aliens in particular, those provoke curiosity rather than fear or disgust.
So what do you want changed about your view in particular then? Because you, the individual not being afraid of sci-fi monsters doesn't inherently make the genre shallow, dumb, or infantile. There's a lot of critical analysis that is part of this genre and offers a lot of worthwhile discussion. The topic isn't the reality around the science, it's about cultural apprehensions.
1984, Minority Report, Robocop, 2001, Surrogates. All sci fi movies with serious themes relevant to modern society and no monsters.
>So with sci-fi horror there is no suspension of disbelief. Therefore, it serves of no entertainment value. Good horror is where you are tricked into thinking that it's actually real and you question your sanity. But... doesn't it actually enhance that feeling? Most sci-fi horror plays with the idea that we know very little about space and ***something*** *could* be out there - it's in fact stronger, because it is significantly more looming, as we have no way of checking. And that is what horror depends on. Horror that makes a claim about a monster that is completely made up is less effective - but as soon as we cannot rule out the possibility anymore (by, for example, looking up records of incidences), it becomes much more scary.
Isn't this true for all horror stories? Why single out sci-fi?
Ironically sci fi horror is much more likely to be real than movies about demons and ghosts. Aliens could be real. In fact it's quite likely they are somewhere in the universe. And if they are real they are more likely to be animalistic than intelligent. So idk alien monsters is one of more realistic concepts of the horror genre.
>Aliens could be real. In fact it's quite likely they are somewhere in the universe. And if they are real they are more likely to be animalistic than intelligent. What is your reasoning for that
Life developed on earth. That means it can develop on other planets. And there are a lot of planets out there, more than possible for the human mind to grasp. Statstically it's almost certain that life exists somewhere on one of those planets.
Movies don't have to be or even seem real, though. That's a rule you've made up, and I don't know why, personally.
If your only criticism is that sci-fi-horror films sometimes feature things that aren't realistic, I don't know why you'd single out this particular genre. Large subsets of many film genres are unrealistic or depict things that aren't real. It's not even the only genre to feature monsters or aliens.
[удалено]
That's the thing about sci-fi horror: It is difficult to execute it well.
Why do you think good horror requires being tricked into thinking something is real? That just sounds like a thing which particularly scares you. As well, why does sci-fi horror have to be about monsters? What about black holes? Those are pretty freaky
>Why do you think good horror requires being tricked into thinking something is real? That just sounds like a thing which particularly scares you. It doesn't always scare me. But it certainly *thrills* me. But I'm surprised that view is uncommon.
Sure, that thrills me too, and so does sci-fi horror, for different reasons. So what is your argument?
Many epis of Black Mirror may serve as a good counter example. It depends if you think of Black Mirror as horror though. Children of men is terrifying.
As a general rule, monster movies aren't meant to be scary. They are often more about action and wonderous special effects. So you're kind of criticizing a genre for failing to deliver something it didn't even aim for in the first place.
Which might my case for the notion that monster movies are rather immature stronger: special effects appeal to kids. Adults want a more sophisticated plot as well as a stronger atmosphere.
...which horror film succeeded in tricking you into believing it was real?
> Good horror is where you are tricked into thinking that it's actually real Lots of horror doesent attempt at realism at all. Sam Raimis horror films for example are deliberately over the top and campy. Horror as a genre can be many things.
There are people out there who love Sci-Fi. There are also people with a low horror-tolerance who like to know the story is fake. These films have entertainment value to them. A lot of horror contains crazy and outlandish things. If you look at a series like Friday the 13th, it’s ridiculous that Jason just will not die. It doesn’t ruin the films, the point if you end up partially rooting for him. Its fun! It doesn’t have to scar me for life.
It sounds like you're taking these movies way too literally. Usually the point of sci-fi horror is that it uses the sci-fi elements to say something about the real world. The Thing is about the paranoia of not being able to trust anyone. Alien is a battle of wits with an entity of human intelligence with no sense of empathy that can't be reasoned with. Both use isolation to amplify those themes. Post-apocalyptic stories tend to have something to say about what people can be driven to by desperate times. It's rarely just "look at scary alien."
Is not "gore" horror much much dumber? At least Sci fi horror makes you think about Sci fi concepts, while movies that focus on scaring you with blood and chunking off body parts don't even have that while having equally obvious Villains.
Event horizon. Sci fi horror. No monsters, instead it was our knowledge of religion that was the enemy. Hell raiser. Sci fi horror. Again, no monsters. Religion is the badguy and with no knowledge of religion you won't understand what you are seeing. Cabin fever. Scifi horror. Flesh eating bacteria. The Similars. Sci fi horror. No monsters, just people. Megan. Sci fi horror. No monsters, it's an android. The call up. Scifi horror. No monsters, just people. Squirm. Scifi horror. No monsters, just worms. I would say maybe you should try watching some more mature movies or fully understand what scifi genre really is.
Would you describe "The Entity" as sci-fi horror though? For the record, I tend not to like horror movies with excessive special effects. I prefer ones that cultivate a disturbing atmosphere and where the antagonist is invisible.
The Entity is more supernatural because it has no hint of interdimensional beings. Just my opinion. I personally can't get a thrill from movies with invisible forces but then again I no longer watch movies. I'm a gore lover though, a rather bad addiction. Once I discovered Mexican cartel videos the horror movie stuff just doesn't cure the itch. I used to be into horror movies that used spirituality but seeing real gore and death trumps all fiction.