Horror movies vs Monsters movies

[Henry88]

i much prefer monster movies (less blood...most of the time any way)

[Tripe]

Yeah I like monster movies better, I simly can't suspend disbelief for horror movies so they aren't as interesting

[Darth Geek]

Most of the time in order for me to care at all about a horror movie it needs to have some kind of monster or supernatural element to it. Thrillers? Fuck you. Slashers where the killer is just a person? Only scary when I read about it in a newspaper (a legitamate newspaper). I need some kind of fantasy elelment to it to make it unique and interesting.

[Bob]

Yeah, monster movies are the way to go.

When the main baddie is a human that you can kill with one .38 bullet, then that is not very scary.   But when the baddie is a monster that is hard to kill or has super abilities, that works for me.

[TTYT]

Slashers where the killer is just a person? Only scary when I read about it in a newspaper (a legitimate newspaper).

I'll agree with you there - though if they give that person the right characterization, I'd be scared. For example: That family in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. They're the stereotypical "Oh, we're going to eat you next! AHAHAHAHA!" mad killers. If they'd been portrayed as a completely normal family who were polite, had a unsuspectingly mostly-clean house, and acted like their killings were about as mundane and normal as some regular family's weekend trip to the park - then I'd be a little scared, because that'd be disturbing as hell. But otherwise, yeah, I think I agree with you about needing some kind of non-human element to really get into a horror film.

[Starman!]

Tough choice, but I'm going with monster movies. Overall, they are more entertaining.

[SJP]

Slashers where the killer is just a person? Only scary when I read about it in a newspaper (a legitimate newspaper).

I'll agree with you there - though if they give that person the right characterization, I'd be scared. For example: That family in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. They're the stereotypical "Oh, we're going to eat you next! AHAHAHAHA!" mad killers. If they'd been portrayed as a completely normal family who were polite, had a unsuspectingly mostly-clean house, and acted like their killings were about as mundane and normal as some regular family's weekend trip to the park - then I'd be a little scared, because that'd be disturbing as hell. But otherwise, yeah, I think I agree with you about needing some kind of non-human element to really get into a horror film.

Actually, Fallout 3 has a sequence an awful lot like that.  And if I hadn't read about the mission before doing it, it probably would've been a lot more disturbing.

Actually, although I probably prefer monster movies overall, I think the importance is the rewatchability factor in making a movie fun.  For instance, technically the Friday the 13th series could be considered both 'horror' and 'monster,' depending on which movie in the series you're watching.  However, I'd probably say I watch more movies from Part 6 onwards than Part 5 and earlier, just because the movies weren't about waiting for some unknown killer to strike, but just to see how creative Jason gets bumping everyone off.  I'd much rather see somebody's face slammed into the side of an RV, get their head crushed into paste by Jason's bare hands, or have their face cryogenically frozen and smashed against a table than see "Oh, no!  A pitchfork to the chest!" for the tenth time.  Of course, by that point Jason has moved from human killer to unkillable monster, but still.  I just think monster movies have that "re-watch" factor more than "human monsters" do.  Not that serial killers and the like can't be scary (I still think the original Black Christmas, viewed for the first time with no background about it, is one of the most horrendously frightening 'horror' film experiences), but I think it has to be done very, very well.  Monsters are different; most of the time, they are about dealing with something bigger, stronger, nastier, less moral (or amoral) by definition, and in some cases, unknowable.  Lovecraft and Cthulhu may be pop culture jokes now, but play Amnesia: The Dark Descent (yes, I know this is the movie section, but bear with me here) and you can see why that kind of "unknowable" stuff can be so pantswetting.

For example, in Scooby-Doo (I'm talking originals, no spin-offs, movies, or post-1990 garbage), when you go into it knowing everyone is an old man trying to scare everyone off of his property, you can't find it in the least frightening.  But if that mask didn't come off at the end of the episode, well...well, I guess you get the crap they're making now.  But my premise still works!

[Watchman]

Horror

Though that's a broad category. I'm drawn to supernatural & atmospheric horror. And Romero-esque zombies. Zombies are neither quite monsters nor supernatural. "Unexplainable phenomena." I prefer when the cause of the problem is never fully explained, that's why The Birds is another of my favorites. And John Carpenter's The Thing.

When I think "Monster" movies I think more specifically those of the Kaiju tradition (Godzilla, Gamera, and what that damned Cloverfield wanted to be). I love the Alien films but I've never thought of them as "monster movies," which are generally FX heavy and fall more into sci-fi/disaster film territory.

How do you differentiate "horror" from "monster"?

[ScottotD]

Conservative groups haven't invented the term "monster porn" yet? 

[Watchman]

Conservative groups haven't invented the term "monster porn" yet? 

I thought that was Hentai.