cinematic v. horrific, or what i did on my summer vacation

[sp!ke]

>I think in the post-modern era we need to invent a new term that allows us
to put certain conditions on an established genre.  For instance, >Blade
Runner was futuristic noir, with the noir aesthetics overpowering the
futuristic aesthetics.  Something like "spin," I suppose.  

	yeah...it's still basically a detective movie with sci-fi concepts.  i
think that's why most sci-fi and fantasy...SUCKS ASS.  rather than have a
story, it's gotta be some epic tale of good v. evil (which totally
undermines any human aspect that the story might have).  after all, look
what hollywood did to johnny mneumonic (guy doing a job in the book turns
into guy saving the world in the awful movie).  the moment that the people
are overshadowed by the spectacle is when good sci-fi goes terribly,
terribly bad (classic or not, can anyone really relate to lord of the rings?).

	movies like blade runner, pi, the fly, gattaca...they might have sci-fi
trappings but they're all about people -- their lives, dreams, fears,
passions.  that's what makes them good.  i look for the same qualities in a
book or an rpg.  using this definition (?), ua is pulp fiction with an
occult aesthetic...blue planet is a western with a sci-fi aesthetic...

>Anyway, I think the problem here is one of poor communication.  I see
cinematic horror as
>something along the lines of Evil Dead -- cartoony, in a sense, but still
damn creepy.  
>It goes against the precepts of horror, since most of the protagonists in
classic horror tales 
>are really really fragile (psychologically and physically).  Still, when
done well, it's very good.

	this is why nobody can make a decent film based on lovecraft (especially a
film that closely resembles his work)...lovecraft was always like, "...and
then the unspeakable shambling thing emerged from the cyclopean crypt and
everyone went mad.  the end."  you can't show the unspeakable in a movie
and get away with it (and not showing it at all ruins the reason for
*filming* the damn thing).  cinematic horror (to me) is like "aliens" --
using standard horror trappings (fear of the dark, of enclosed
spaces...someone chasing you...birthing some*thing*) in a cinematic way (in
the case of "aliens," a war movie set in the future).  a distant cousin
would be cinematic sci-fi (starship troopers, again with the war movie
model) or fantasy (star wars...using a western motiff...complete with
stagecoach chases and black hats).

	probably one of the best examples of cinematic horror in a ua vein (hah!)
would be "seven." 

>I can imagine people playing UA with cinematic horror, just as I can see
people modelling after 
>Cronenberg, and going for the classic horror.

	well, those people are just messed up and you should NEVER take candy from
them.

	actually, dc is a lot more removed from classic horror than you would
think -- after all, most of his characters *are* in some capacity the
"monster" (internal threats vs. external threats).  as a result, his
body-horror approach is a lot closer to to UA than ya might think.
external forces causing an internal conflict.  anyway, stephen king had
some great views on horror in _danse macabre_.  something like, "horror is
biological, terror is psychological" -- horror is the monster under your
bed, terror is thinking that the monster is there.  external v. internal.

	terror is much more appealing to me.  i don't care how many slimy, toothy,
tentacled monstrosities you throw at me...that stuff is old hat.  terror,
though...you can't really get hardened points in terror.  now, what was i
saying?

- sp!Key

Jared A. Sorensen
http://www.memento-mori.com