Even the hardest horror veterans don’t think movies need to be scary to succeed

The ever-evolving genre of horror has been defined by literary historian J. A. Cuddon as “a piece of fiction in prose of variable length… which shocks, or even frightens the reader, or perhaps induces a feeling of repulsion or loathing.” Generally speaking, if a contemporary piece of horror fiction doesn’t meet these criteria, it isn’t classified as “scary enough” to receive that categorization. Especially in the modern realm of horror, that old-headed way of thinking has been debunked; psychological horror and supernatural horror, while not always conventionally “scary” as they are unsettling, largely account for most of the 21st century’s revolutionary horror.

Over on Reddit, the debate has resurfaced as one user remarked that horror is “easier to crossover into other genres than any other genre,” hence its flexibility in that regard. However, an action-horror, for example, wouldn’t have the same shock value (supposedly) as, let’s say, a horror-thriller, simply because ‘horror’ and ‘thriller’ are more closely entwined. Either way, the original post argues that horror comes in all shapes and sizes, so there isn’t necessarily a “one size fits all” scheme when it comes to judging horror by its ability to scare and disgust.

from Movie News | Movie Reviews | Movie Trailers https://ift.tt/EubUYGC