Current Events > That whole thing about Scream being so important/influential

(+) Yeah! (+)

seems like absolute nonsense that somebody decided it was cool to perpetuate. The years following 1996 were the absolute worst years for horror in literally at least half a century. None of the films directly influenced by Scream were at all even moderately decent films; stuff like The Faculty, Idle Hands, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Swimfan, Urban Legends, and all the nu-metal horror stuff was just watchable at best.
The "meta-horror" thing didn't really kick off -- and of the two best films that could be put into that category, Man Bites Dog and Funny Games, the former came before Scream and the latter it's highly dubious that Heineke drew his influence from Scream. The majority of the best stuff to happen in the latter part of the '90s and early to mid-'00s was either French (it's highly doubtful that the New French Extremity movement was influenced by Scream) or Japanese (again, highly unlikely that Miike was influenced by Scream). The other best films from that time, The Blair Witch and Let the Right One in, also didn't seem to see much influence from Scream.
You could probably say that Tucker and Dale vs. Evil was clearly influenced by Scream - but one good film isn't grounds to make a sweeping generalization that Scream "saved" horror. If you're going to credit anything for "saving" horror - I'd credit stuff like You're Next and Green Room that really opened up independent films to get greenlighted as major releases, or A24 for literally helping make the latter part of the 2010s arguably some of the best years in the Western history of the genre (maybe not as great as the mid-late '70s/early '80s, but up there with like '88-'91).
Horror, especially American horror, was a cesspool for the most part from '96 to the early 2010s.

Holy shit no one is reading that. God damn. Also you're wrong.

---

oh sweetie it's called a "deconstruction"

---

specialkid8 posted...

Holy shit no one is reading that. God damn. Also you're wrong.

Read it and attempt to make any remotely valid argument. What the fuck did it "save" helping give us shit movies like Swim Fan, and High School horror films starring Josh Hartnett?

It got you to make a wall of text a couple decades later.

Seems pretty influential

---

FL81 posted...

oh sweetie it's called a "deconstruction"

What did it deconstruct? People were already well aware of the tropes. Films like Saturday the 14th, Fade to Black, and April Fools Day existed back in the '80s. Films had broken the fourth wall or been self referential for a long time, too. Hell, didn't Norman smile to the audience at the end of Psycho? I just re-watched Possession and that entire "you say 'I' for me" monologue was kind of directed at the audience.
I also noted that Man Bites Dog was a meta-film and existed long before Scream, too.

Horror, particularly the slasher genre, was dying a very slow death in the late 80s/early 90s. The think the success of Scream gave studios hope for the genres. So they tried to replicate it. Sometimes well, sometimes not. Imo Scream did revive horror and was influential. You don't get movies like You're Next without Scream.

---

Scream inspired Scary Movie.

The first one was funny.

I'm willing to bet Cabin in the Woods was at least somewhat inspired by Scream. Other than that, Scream did influence a bunch of shitty movies to be greenlit by whatever studio was looking for a quick buck off the mild resurgence of horror in general.

Scream is still a damn fine movie tho, but I see it more like the very late swan song of slasher flicks.
---

MorbidFaithless posted...

Horror, particularly the slasher genre, was dying a very slow death in the late 80s/early 90s. The think the success of Scream gave studios hope for the genres. So they tried to replicate it. Sometimes well, sometimes not. Imo Scream did revive horror and was influential. You don't get movies like You're Next without Scream.

It led to an absolute death of the genre in the West for years - that's why it was saturated with bad j-horror remakes, all those awful William Castle remakes, all the High School horror films, nu-metal horror, etc. that was all cash-grab.
Horror is the most subversive of film genres, and I don't think financial success was ever its main draw -- even if the big, mainstream franchises of the '80s really made it seem that way to some people since they just so happened to wind up being profitable. There was plenty of stuff happening in the '80s that didn't have that as its main target. There were plenty of passion projects, straight to VHS companies, production companies like Troma and Full Moon, SOV films, etc.
While I'm sure Wingard and Saulnier aren't complaining about having made money off their films - I'm sure You're Next and Green Room would've been made whether or not they had wide releases. I mean - Saulnier's Blue Ruin was funded by Kickstarter. And the risks A24 makes I'm sure aren't in the name of profit; something like The Lighthouse is a little too unconventional to even be considered a cash grab.

Scream legitimized real actors at the height of their careers starring in horror movies.

Background_Guy posted...

Scream legitimized real actors at the height of their careers starring in horror movies.

This may actually be the most valid argument I've seen.
EDIT: using more recent examples, I'm sure the Lighthouse and Hereditary would've still been good films but not as good without their star power.