Likable characters (victims), within dark horror movies. Good idea or bad idea?

[Emperor-of-Dragons]

Something I posted on TV tropes years ago after a debate i had with my friends

A common problem in horror movies tends to be the fact some fans see the genre as nothing but Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy. For example: The cast of potential victims is presented as a bunch of obnoxious jerks, and/or complete idiots, to the point where it's hard to feel bad for them when they finally start dying. Although for many that's part of the appeal. On the other hand, if the horror movie has a sympathetic family as a victim it could have another negative effect ranging from Shoot the Dog to Moral Event Horizon (as far as the writers, creators etc...unfairly or not) to Crosses the Line Twice. Which could also turn off certain groups of horror fans as well, which possibly explain the constant obnoxious jerk characters as a substitute, and villains constantly being prone to being Draco in Leather Pants. Horror films (especially mainstream American horror films) likes to be broadly appealing. You can't have a popular horror film where expies of The Waltons and The Cosbys are brutally murdered by the Psycho/Demon/Werewolf/Vampire/Alien.

Of course, while it might be too horrifying to subject, say, a charming, wholesome, likeable family to the events of a horror film, making potential victims unlikable and rooting for the monster are both Comically Missing the Point of horror. Why should you be scared of something you're actually hoping to happen? This is sort of a inherent divisiveness within the genre (like the situation with Glenn Rhee in the walking dead show and comics). Horror fans want to be scared, but doesn't want it to come by way of hurting innocent likeable characters. Which is terribly ironic considering certain horror fans complain about the genre lacking likeable characters. So my question I guess is what should the standard be. Where should the line be drawn?

[Immortal Weapon]

I like it when the victims are sympathetic and likable. I feel that the horror will be more effective when you care about the characters. Horror fails if I'm rooting for most of the cast to be killed off.

[Vanguard-01]

I think having likeable victims makes the "horror" genre actually live up to it's name. Seeing people die should be horrifying. Seeing people you don't like or don't care about dying just never has the same impact. Sure, it's cathartic to cheer for the killer/monster a little as he/she/they/it kill that character you really don't like, but it's not "horrifying."

Doesn't mean there can't be variety of victims, of course. But there's a reason why we're always tense when "the final girl" is in her big, climactic battle with the killer. She's generally the only character in the movie we've been led to care about.

[Darth Phoenix]

I prefer it when done well like many of the characters in Silent Hill movie.

but I do enjoy a good Friday 13,Elm Street, Jeeper creeper monster movie. were its carnage

but I do not enjoy Human serial killers once it's just people killing people they usually lose me altogether.

[SpiderClops]

If I want the demon/psycho/werewolf/ghost/whatever to kill the protagonists of the horror movies or any kind of movie for that matter, then the movie is definitely doing something wrong.

[Madam-Shogun-Assassin]

My take away is that we're dealing with a case of popcorn horror vs pure horror. The former is more popular IMO. especially with its emphasis on dumb unlikable characters, usually teenagers. Straight faced horror tend to be critically divisive at best, or an acclaimed flop at worst. But popcorn horror is more digestible for some reason. I think certain fans like to detach themselves from characters in bleak settings in general. I remember people victim blaming the female leads in the remake of the hills have eyes, and I was like really? I think once you weed out the popcorn horror fans, the core audience for pure horror shrinks significantly....just my cynical opinion lol..

[Totoro Man]

within horror movies it's good to have at least a few sympathetic characters. ideally you could have a mix of unsympathetic characters in there as well.

but, if we're talking about slasher films (where the true hero of the film is the one murdering people) it's a different genre. I know it may not be precise, but for me that's the primary difference between 'horror' and 'slasher' films. in the latter case the killer is treated in a sympathetic light. they get lionized like war heroes who go out and brutally kill the unworthy deplorables. (Freddy, Jason, Chucky... they all seem to fall into this basic category) the situation gets even more pronounced if the film has a central, recurring villain with a personal name.

and, y'know, some people probably start off making a horror film and then end up transforming it into a slasher film because that's what sells more.

a good horror story, in my opinion, shouldn't really have sequels. the sequels usually start becoming formulaic slasher films that miss what made the original so compelling and interesting.

[Kusanagi]

Great Horror Movies have likable characters who feel real. That's what makes what they're going through horrific, you want them to survive, and it feels bad when the worst happens to them. That's not to say every character in the movie has to be likable, but you need a few of them for it to actually be memorable.

As noted above slasher films are different, hell half the time the audience is rooting for the killer in those.

[Madam-Shogun-Assassin]

within horror movies it's good to have at least a few sympathetic characters. ideally you could have a mix of unsympathetic characters in there as well.

but, if we're talking about slasher films (where the true hero of the film is the one murdering people) it's a different genre. I know it may not be precise, but for me that's the primary difference between 'horror' and 'slasher' films. in the latter case the killer is treated in a sympathetic light. they get lionized like war heroes who go out and brutally kill the unworthy deplorables. (Freddy, Jason, Chucky... they all seem to fall into this basic category) the situation gets even more pronounced if the film has a central, recurring villain with a personal name.

and, y'know, some people probably start off making a horror film and then end up transforming it into a slasher film because that's what sells more.

a good horror story, in my opinion, shouldn't really have sequels. the sequels usually start becoming formulaic slasher films that miss what made the original so compelling and interesting.

That's a really good point. But The villain is kinda centralized so he/she/it has to be "likeable" too. I mean if Freddy is TOO evil it won't work.

[electr1cgoblin]

This is a MAJOR flaw with most of today's horror flicks; I just don't care if the characters die, and conversely I also feel the moment you start putting yourself in the shoes of the villain the movie no longer works as horror. At that point, it's something else; a comedy, a reality show spectacle like watching the Christians get fed to the lions (if you were a Roman), but it's not horror.

Implicit in the definition of "horror" to me is that something "horrible" happens. If something bad happens to terrible people, that's, well, too bad, but it's not horrible and it doesn't engage me.

That's when the Nightmare on Elm Street series jumped the shark; when Freddy became the touchstone for the audience, the guy they almost rooted for. He was no longer an agent of fear and darkness, he was the class clown who stuck it to the stupid and the unworthy.

[Totoro Man]

That's a really good point. But The villain is kinda centralized so he/she/it has to be "likeable" too. I mean if Freddy is TOO evil it won't work.

seems like that would only be a requirement if you're trying to make a franchise. for a one-shot horror film there's really no such thing as a villain that's TOO despicable. after all, Freddy abducted and murdered children prior to getting burned to death. when he was brought back, however, he restricted himself almost exclusively to the more socially acceptable target: teenagers. if they'd shown Freddy reverting to murdering younger children people probably wouldn't have stuck around for that.

besides, many solid horror films have been based on the idea of some unstoppable force of nature and don't have villains with personalities. films like "Poltergeist", "Night of the Living Dead", and "the Thing" have an antagonistic force that is essentially devoid of personality but they still work... the first time!

sequels usually do one of two things wrong:
1. they make the formal antagonist the 'hero', kill off the protagonist from the first film, and then merely supply the villain with new cannon fodder. this is practically inevitable with sequels since the reasoning is that people are coming back because they want to see more of the same. in most cases it's where the villain brutally murders people. the only exception I can really think of is the "Alien" franchise where they wisely decided that they needed Ripley to be central to the narrative in some way.

2. the other common problem is that they overdo it when it comes to exposition. they desperately try to explain away every plot hole and loose end from the earlier films: EVERYTHING! in most cases leaving a certain amount of mystery would be the simpler and more reasonable option. sometimes the backstory that gets created is so threadbare and idiotic that it would have been better to leave things ambiguous or unexplained.

I dunno... sometimes the concept is only worth ONE film. I was thinking about the classic film "the Bad Seed". it sort of hinges on the horror that evil could be genetically passed on, and couldn't be bypassed in spite of all efforts to the contrary. the horror is built on that classic parenting fear: what if I raise an evil child? then there's also the conflict between nature vs nurture. parents can feel responsible for evil and can't assuage their sense of guilt. making a murderous child who is gleeful, sadistic, and unrepentant murderer is going to be tough to sell over a franchise. we can tolerate this in adults but can't really abide that in children.

[Madam-Shogun-Assassin]

seems like that would only be a requirement if you're trying to make a franchise. for a one-shot horror film there's really no such thing as a villain that's TOO despicable. after all, Freddy abducted and murdered children prior to getting burned to death. when he was brought back, however, he restricted himself almost exclusively to the more socially acceptable target: teenagers. if they'd shown Freddy reverting to murdering younger children people probably wouldn't have stuck around for that.

To be clear I'm FINE with dark horror villains. I was more so speaking about general audiences. Reminds me of the hate that A Nightmare on Elm Street remake got over it being dark.....which was bizarre.

[jbmasta]

Just as long as they don't bring out a picture of their family, a sure fire sign they'll be killed.

[Darth Phoenix]

To be clear I'm FINE with dark horror villains. I was more so speaking about general audiences. Reminds me of the hate that A Nightmare on Elm Street remake got over it being dark.....which was bizarre.

It was not Dark enough to justify how bad and boring it was. I wanted to like it.

[Flyattractor]

As I recall from the big 3 of the 80's Slashers they kept the victims (for the most part) Likable at least until the mid points of their runs. After that they all became douches you couldn't wait to see get it.