It wasn’t always this way. Films like Rosemary’s Baby, Night of the Living Dead, and pretty much the entire Hitchcock collection were some of the most iconic films of their times.
In my opinion, the popularity of the late 70s to 80s slasher films (Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm St, Texas Chainsaw Massacre to name a few), combined with studios’ ever-shrinking tolerance for risk, resulted in a particularly bland few decades of mainstream horror, with the well-known Saw franchise and, to a lesser extent, the somewhat satirical Final Destination series as typical examples of the era. Personally, I’m partial to the Evil Dead films, Army of Darkness most of all. Groovy.
Horror can be excellent when done well, and pathetic when done poorly. It is easy to go for cheap scares and bloody massacre scenes. There is a lot to dislike about modern horror films that can turn off audiences looking for more than jump scares and blood splatter. If I hadn’t dated a girl in college who was super into the horror genre, I would have never gotten into it.
Horror is best when it floods you with an emotional high that lasts long after the initial shock. For a most masterful example, try playing Silent Hill 2, if you dare.
I’m a bit skeptical of the author’s claim. It seems like things are still that way. There are lots of recent critically-acclaimed horror movies. The genre seems to be a great way for smaller indie studios and filmmakers to experiment. I suppose it’s true that there aren’t many big horror blockbusters on par with Hitchcock or Rosemary’s Baby, but I’m not convinced there were ever a lot of those.
I think there are ups and downs with genres. I think horror is currently in a new golden age (not the only one--there have been others in the past), and actually think the article is part of this trend. It's easy to suggest that the current wave of outstanding horror reflects a kind of "backhanded compliment" when it was preceded by overworn cliche films, for decades.
This is recognized within the horror fan community as well. There are lots of people on various forums talking about the cornucopia of great horror at the moment, and my guess is a number of fans will spend years catching up on their expanding lists of films to see and rewatch. It's really remarkable.
There's a broader context that I think the author is missing, or at least ignoring: film and visual arts critics don't care about genre, they care about film. Genre tends to create a comparative context that doesn't necessarily exist if your scope is film at large. So, horror films exist to cater to a horror film fan base, romantic comedies exist to cater to that, superhero films cater to that, science fiction, fantasy, and so forth and so on. If it is a backhanded compliment, my guess is the same could be said of any genre to some extent.
The excellent literary craftsmanship of Stephen King helped elevate the horror genre in print, too. I think that sometimes a few talented artists can make genre work more. . . respectable.
Let's not forget The Shining! I've heard claims that it's the favorite horror movie of people who don't like horror movies. I think that's because it fits in line with the movies you list in your first paragraph.
I think a lot of good horror has moved from the big studios to smaller creators where taking risks is necessary to capture audiences.
That goes from small fiction novels (fan fiction included) on to youtube videos and even multi-media ARG (alternate reality games).
A pretty neat example would be Don't Hug Me I'm Scared, a rather deep exploration of media that I would definitely put into the category of horror.
Another one I recently discovered is the Twitter account @thesunvanished. Twitter as a medium means there cannot be a jump scare. The only way to keep people interested is to keep at the core of horror. Even some of the slenderman ARGs, despite what people might think about the story, are pretty damn good despite using cheap effects (or maybe because they're using cheap effects?).
(Of course, it's all about taste and even the small creators can fail)
It's seen as facile within the industry. Hence the reputation and lack of prestigious awards recognition. Easy to write, cheap to produce, and now in the digital era, the jump cut scare tricks and camera effects can be inserted by the dozen. See the trailer for Blumhouse's The Nun to get a sense.
But with the blockbuster success of films like It, Get Out, and A Quiet Place we will see something never witnessed before in cinema history: the coming of the big budget horror flick. I think The Conjuring 2 budget was upwards of $40M. And it looked terrific. The upcoming Venom and Shane Black's The Predator are no doubt deeply influenced by classic horror tropes.
But for the real deal. Still nothing compares to the classics. I finally got to screen David Cronenberg's Videodrome the other night. Holy Guacamole. They don't make anything quite like that anymore ;)
I don't think It really counts as "elevated horror". The book is interesting; you might call it an elevation of pulp horror. But the movie is just a garden-variety spooky clown movie.
Big budget horror movies are nothing new; look at the Alien franchise.
"elevator horror" is a funny term but I definitely meant "elevated horror"; edited.
Yet, something happens as the budget tops $50M. They cease being scary. And turn into, you know, The Mummy ;)
I want to genuinely watch a $100M Excorcist or Carrie or The Omen. Something original by a master.
Another recommendation for the kids out there is John Landis' An American Werewolf In London from 1981. Still holds up. Maybe its time to return to analog effects!
Videodrome has faded from my memory. All I remeber is how I felt watching it. Like A Clockwork Orange, Dead Ringers, and Blue Velvet, I'm not sure I ever want to see it again.
A film I don't often see mentioned but that I still think is a good watch is Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Well, I guess I'm the third kind. I find the movie to be powerful in the depiction of the devastation caused by addiction. It does it's job excellently,it's also very gripping, but it's definitely not a joy to watch. I mostly become depressed after watching it. But I do watch it every 3 years or so :-)
Incidentally, I first heard the music when I watched the movie. The whole casting and TV selling and drug buying scene was framed by this music, and it felt very dirge-like. A foreshadowing of what was to come. And my mind associated it very strongly with those kind of tragic scenarios. But later I started seeing videos on Youtube about football or dogs with the same music.
That's interesting to me, as I found Videodrome very rewatchable, mostly due to the "OK let's try again to figure out wtf actually happened here..." effect.
On the other hand, I'm actively avoiding A Clockwork Orange...
I used to watch Moviedrome every week and I cannot find the Videodrome intro from Mark Cousins but everything from him was pretty great, for instance [1].
The way he introduced movies and in particular the horror ones made me never forget them.
Let's not forget the legendary Blair Witch Project. Horror, as a genre, if done well can work incredibly well on a very small budget. Not sure many other genres can achieve the same level of audience emotion on similar budgets.
I was working in a movie theater when that was released, and watched it when I got off work one day. I love horror movies, but I agree it was a dud. Given that it inspired countless even less compelling imitators it has a lot to answer for imo.
Responding to the thesis of the article though, I think comedy is at least as disrespected as horror.
Drama can theoretically succeed on an even smaller budget. Consider "12 Angry Men", which is practically a stage play. Single set (with very minor exceptions), minimal props, mostly just talking, and it's a critically acclaimed film. And there are plenty of unknown actors and writers who think they could be great if they got the chance, and they can't all be wrong. Maybe someday we'll get something just as good made on a zero budget with phone cameras and natural lighting.
Also The Man From Earth, which also takes place almost entirely in a single room and is just some people talking for 90 minutes, but keeps you thoroughly engaged for every second of it.
And you don’t even need to go zero budget. Even $10K or so in camera, lighting, and audio gear gets you to a pretty nice setup by historical low budget standards.
I really like the Blair Witch Project. Maybe it is because I kind of love the style or the low budgetness of it. Maybe it was because it came out when I was first getting online and reading movie sites and so I heard about it (and knew it was not actual found footage) long before it started being advertised. Maybe it was because it was one of the first movies to have all this cross-media stuff like their web site and the special that aired in tv about The Legend of the Blair Witch.
And their short-lived tv show Freaky Links was really ahead of its time (it is basically about a youtuber hunting paranormal stuff but it came out in 2000)
I’m not sure I have much interest in rewatching it but it was certainly a film that was notable in part because it brought in all these things that had never really been seen before.
I think part of the problem for “elevated”, “art house”, etc horror films is that the majority of “horror” films these days are more torture porn than drama/plot, and more “jump scare” than tension.
I feel like the original “cube” ushered in the realization that you could make a “popular” movie that was not a block buster actually be profitable if you kept the costs close to zero. So we get movies that don’t require well known actors (the star is the fx) with few sets (cube essentially had two).
I thought I had a point but now I don’t know what it was, so I’ll leave this comment half way done, just like my old high school essays :)
I wasn’t saying that they are “shitty films” - movies like saw, etc are clearly popular, but don’t have the drama (as in acting, not crazy coworkers) that film reviewers like.
The problem for movies like Get Out and the quiet one (blanking on the name), is that they get placed in the “horror” bucket, which is increasingly dominated by the Saw-style torture porn movies.
I’m not entirely sure that I particularly buy the articles arguments, I think it’s more a reflection of which sub-genre is perceived by the general populace as reflecting the genre as a whole. As with many things the dominant sub-genre changes over time. The author seems to want a specific sub-genre to be regarded as the actual definition of the whole genre rather than allowing the overall perception of what a genre should be to change over time.
For instance the article is talking about the horror genre, and the torture vs suspense sub genres. But we can look elsewhere as well - compare what was considered an “action” movie in the 80s, vs 90s, vs 00s, vs today. We can see as the popularity of different genres ebbs over time. For action movies the sub genres /could/ be meaningful plot vs explosions and everywhere in between. Modern action movies (super heroes) try to have character development, 80s and 90s less so (predator, which might also be considered “horror”).
I'll ramble on... I don't know, I certainly think that older action movies engage me more than new super hero movies in terms of characters. To some extent I guess it boils down to the fact that it's hard to suspend disbelief and make the protagonist relatable when he's got magic powers that he only uses while wearing spandex/latex.
Even the soldiers in The Predator seem more relatable and develop in more interesting and believable ways. Given their backgrounds, they react to the circumstances in plausible ways. The film doesn't hand you their backgrounds by having the first 30 minutes be some sort of genesis story and a montage, but by having the characters do what they do in a way that tells us more and more about them as the film progresses. I wouldn't call The Predator "subtle" but everything is relative.
If you have a shitty action movie, it'll still have action. Some fantasy movie will still have some fantasy and story telling, no matter how shitty. Even the shittiest B-movies manage to tell a story and have some action, which is fine for the genre, you get some of it.
But with horror the problem is that if you fuck it up, you don't get horror, you get torture porn or reflex training (jump scare). If you don't nail the horror, it seizes to be horror.
I don't think it's a unique problem. An action movie that fails to instill a sense of action is just as bad as a horror movie that fails to instill a sense of horror.
For example, I tried going through some of the later Steven Seagal flicks lately. The way they're cut and the pacing make them absolutely boring. The stories they tell aren't cohesive, and the action is the closest thing to stills of Seagal's limbs you'll get before you'd have to call them slideshows. Those are bad action movies, and I suspect that what you call bad action movies are actually just campy/shoestring/"so-bad-they're-funny" yet entertaining action movies.
Same for fantasy. If your fantasy film is utterly mundane, unoriginal and uninspiring it'll fail to deliver the fantastic. Not to mention comedy. If your comedy is not funny what's left is often a really thin plot revolving around unrelatable characters under unbelievable circumstances. Drama film has no drama if you don't care about any of the characters.
I'd still call these horror, action, fantasy, comedy and drama films, respectively. As much as I think it's bad, the intent is obvious, and a bad genre film is just one that was really bad at achieving it.
All kinds of film can fail (or be good) both at their genre, whatever it is, and at basic style and storytelling. For example, A Quiet Place maintains tension well, but it squanders its coherence and ruins a potentially great novel premise with pointless music and improbably contrived opportunities to let the characters speak.
I mean specifically the current (15-20 year) increase in this genre, with the intention of showing in mainstream theatres.
Shoestrings budget films have existed pretty much as long as motion cameras have been generally available.
But these are specifically created because they are cheap (relatively) to make and sell enough tickets to get into mainstream theatres, which produces much higher profits than other genres on shoestring budgets. Note of course that all of this is the general case - there are obviously exceptions in every direction.
The arguing about what genre these movies fit in sounds like metal or electronica fans arguing about which band is in which sub-sub-genre. I personally think of genres as tags rather than exclusive silos. The best stuff often doesn't fit neatly into a single genre.
As for "Intelligent Horror" demeaning "normal" horror—I'm not sure I've ever heard people complaining about IDM[1] vs EDM[2].
> The term "intelligent dance music" has been widely criticised and rejected by artists associated with the style, including Aphex Twin and µ-Ziq, as elitist and derogatory towards other genres. [...] In 2014, music critic Sasha Frere-Jones observed that the term "is widely reviled but still commonly used".
Half the page is discussing the backlash against the term on the exact same grounds.
I personally would go to a more base level, how the fuck is it no writer has been able to copy Harry Potter, there's b/millions in it. (Exception Hunger Games, not.... Dark Materials)
It's formulaic and a book, so lowish cost. A known worldbuild of fantasy with children being the protagonists. Just good writing.
I blame the (university) system, rather than teaching people to write it teaches people what to write. And this flows through to screenplays.
I don't know about many still image movies, but La Jetée is pretty respected. So if it can even be called a genre, it does not seem to be especially disrespected.
Exploitation is movies like the infamous "Ilse" which mixed Nazi-fetchism, sadism, torture, castration - basically wallows in the most taboo subjects imaginable.
Well considering most (all?) of Tarantino's films are exploitation films, it's certainly possible to make exploitation films respectfully. Consider that Tarantino is one of the most critically acclaimed and influential directors, ever.
What whataboutism? You suggested exploitation films are even less respected than porn, I gave you example of a highly respected director who almost exclusively made exploitation films. I was trying to provide a counter-example, especially since I cannot think of a Tarantino-equivalent director making porn.
Tarantino is literally the only director and when his movies are talked about, they're elevated above their respective genres exactly the same way horror movies are as discussed in this article we're commenting about...
I'm sorry for the miscommunication but I thought we were comparing exploitation and porn. Tarantino was able to make very obviously, almost "cringely" exploitive movies like Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, Death Proof, Inglorious Basterds and somehow gained the title of one of the most influential directors ever. I understand that this is N=1 data -- and certainly Tarantino is an artistic genius -- but the fact that this single data is so worthwhile and that there is no porn director who even remotely came close to Tarantino, it seems to me exploitation films are not less regarded than porn.
Horror is one of those genres where it's one of my favorites if done right, but it's rarely done right. Especially quality horror-sci-fi is a combination that practically doesn't exist.
It sometimes seems to fare better as books (Stephen King) or games (Bioshock) rather than movies.
Serious stories happening in a real historical setting are on top. And it goes down as we deviate from this archetype. Fantasy and sci-fi are a step lower, and comedy is rock bottom. Horror is often not serious or realistic, it is meant to entertain, in its own way, so it is right down there with comedy.
Of course, that hierarchy is purely artificial. People enjoy "low tier" movies a lot, and a lot of talent goes into them (to varying degrees of course). But for some reason, you don't want to say it publicly.
I think it dates back to ancient Greece or maybe even earlier. So that's a thing we have to live with I think.
Porn is more disrespected I think. The term "torture porn" is used disparaging even by horror enthusiasts.
Movies catering to base physical reactions (sexual arousal, fear, laughter) is considered less prestigious. Although intellectual comedy can be pretty prestigious compared to physical comedy. And psychological horror is considered more prestigious than horror based on gore and dismemberment. And suspense is higher than horror I think.
But should that be counted? Any amateur, vanity version of any genre is almost entirely worse. But is it a genre itself, or just unpublished junk versions of the genre?
I'd rather see this label more often as my wife only watches horror, but so much of it is beyond garbage that I won't watch it, but there are some really good horror movies, so I want to have a better indication of which ones are serious movies with plot that just happen to be horror, dark, psychological, gore or whatever, but aren't just trash with no plot that's 100% predictable or has so many things that contradict themselves.
Horror is like the genre where anyone with a video camera fresh out of highschool can produce and somehow get in a bargain bin at any store. The genre has some good stuff, but it's way too flooded with garbage that it's hard to find the good stuff. Some people like the campiness of it, but I just don't have the time to waste on it. In highschool I remember we rented a horror movie because the first name on it was Ron Jeremy and we were like "heh, heh, awesome"! He was in the first 1 minute as a bum, no lines, and died, the rest of the movie was beyond horrible. Those kinds of tactics don't help the genre either.
Yeah, lots of other genres have tons of garbage too, but somehow it doesn't seem like it does to the same extent (just how I've seen things). Maybe it's because Horror has the potential to be awesome, ridiculous or cool, even if it's a shit tier movie, where as a drama just doesn't have the allure without critical acclaim, big names, or notable nudity. There are way more cult followings around horror movies than dramas or others it seems.
I can understand that nobody likes someone else coming into their "scene" and scooping out the best stuff, giving it a respectable note/name, and calling the rest of the baggage, history, and culty stuff garbage.
67 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 94.6 ms ] threadIn my opinion, the popularity of the late 70s to 80s slasher films (Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm St, Texas Chainsaw Massacre to name a few), combined with studios’ ever-shrinking tolerance for risk, resulted in a particularly bland few decades of mainstream horror, with the well-known Saw franchise and, to a lesser extent, the somewhat satirical Final Destination series as typical examples of the era. Personally, I’m partial to the Evil Dead films, Army of Darkness most of all. Groovy.
Horror can be excellent when done well, and pathetic when done poorly. It is easy to go for cheap scares and bloody massacre scenes. There is a lot to dislike about modern horror films that can turn off audiences looking for more than jump scares and blood splatter. If I hadn’t dated a girl in college who was super into the horror genre, I would have never gotten into it.
Horror is best when it floods you with an emotional high that lasts long after the initial shock. For a most masterful example, try playing Silent Hill 2, if you dare.
This is recognized within the horror fan community as well. There are lots of people on various forums talking about the cornucopia of great horror at the moment, and my guess is a number of fans will spend years catching up on their expanding lists of films to see and rewatch. It's really remarkable.
There's a broader context that I think the author is missing, or at least ignoring: film and visual arts critics don't care about genre, they care about film. Genre tends to create a comparative context that doesn't necessarily exist if your scope is film at large. So, horror films exist to cater to a horror film fan base, romantic comedies exist to cater to that, superhero films cater to that, science fiction, fantasy, and so forth and so on. If it is a backhanded compliment, my guess is the same could be said of any genre to some extent.
That goes from small fiction novels (fan fiction included) on to youtube videos and even multi-media ARG (alternate reality games).
A pretty neat example would be Don't Hug Me I'm Scared, a rather deep exploration of media that I would definitely put into the category of horror.
Another one I recently discovered is the Twitter account @thesunvanished. Twitter as a medium means there cannot be a jump scare. The only way to keep people interested is to keep at the core of horror. Even some of the slenderman ARGs, despite what people might think about the story, are pretty damn good despite using cheap effects (or maybe because they're using cheap effects?).
(Of course, it's all about taste and even the small creators can fail)
But with the blockbuster success of films like It, Get Out, and A Quiet Place we will see something never witnessed before in cinema history: the coming of the big budget horror flick. I think The Conjuring 2 budget was upwards of $40M. And it looked terrific. The upcoming Venom and Shane Black's The Predator are no doubt deeply influenced by classic horror tropes.
But for the real deal. Still nothing compares to the classics. I finally got to screen David Cronenberg's Videodrome the other night. Holy Guacamole. They don't make anything quite like that anymore ;)
Big budget horror movies are nothing new; look at the Alien franchise.
"elevator horror" is a funny term but I definitely meant "elevated horror"; edited.
I want to genuinely watch a $100M Excorcist or Carrie or The Omen. Something original by a master.
Another recommendation for the kids out there is John Landis' An American Werewolf In London from 1981. Still holds up. Maybe its time to return to analog effects!
A film I don't often see mentioned but that I still think is a good watch is Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Requiem for a Dream falls into that first category as well for me.
Incidentally, I first heard the music when I watched the movie. The whole casting and TV selling and drug buying scene was framed by this music, and it felt very dirge-like. A foreshadowing of what was to come. And my mind associated it very strongly with those kind of tragic scenarios. But later I started seeing videos on Youtube about football or dogs with the same music.
On the other hand, I'm actively avoiding A Clockwork Orange...
The way he introduced movies and in particular the horror ones made me never forget them.
[1] https://youtu.be/jRcOgZD5ffw
Responding to the thesis of the article though, I think comedy is at least as disrespected as horror.
And their short-lived tv show Freaky Links was really ahead of its time (it is basically about a youtuber hunting paranormal stuff but it came out in 2000)
2. No, it's outdated.
3. Not unless you're making another Ring. This is bad and you should feel bad as an author.
4. It is a common framing device, also used in fantasy.
5. The better horrors take place in a bigger area than just a house. They may have some related scenes like that.
Most importantly, this tells more about the kind of horror movies you're watching.
Common creepy stuff like darkness, contrast and claustrophobia are obviously used. They are generally scary.
Just curious, what horror movies would you recommend?
I feel like the original “cube” ushered in the realization that you could make a “popular” movie that was not a block buster actually be profitable if you kept the costs close to zero. So we get movies that don’t require well known actors (the star is the fx) with few sets (cube essentially had two).
I thought I had a point but now I don’t know what it was, so I’ll leave this comment half way done, just like my old high school essays :)
The problem for movies like Get Out and the quiet one (blanking on the name), is that they get placed in the “horror” bucket, which is increasingly dominated by the Saw-style torture porn movies.
I’m not entirely sure that I particularly buy the articles arguments, I think it’s more a reflection of which sub-genre is perceived by the general populace as reflecting the genre as a whole. As with many things the dominant sub-genre changes over time. The author seems to want a specific sub-genre to be regarded as the actual definition of the whole genre rather than allowing the overall perception of what a genre should be to change over time.
For instance the article is talking about the horror genre, and the torture vs suspense sub genres. But we can look elsewhere as well - compare what was considered an “action” movie in the 80s, vs 90s, vs 00s, vs today. We can see as the popularity of different genres ebbs over time. For action movies the sub genres /could/ be meaningful plot vs explosions and everywhere in between. Modern action movies (super heroes) try to have character development, 80s and 90s less so (predator, which might also be considered “horror”).
And I’m rambling incoherently so I’ll be off :)
Even the soldiers in The Predator seem more relatable and develop in more interesting and believable ways. Given their backgrounds, they react to the circumstances in plausible ways. The film doesn't hand you their backgrounds by having the first 30 minutes be some sort of genesis story and a montage, but by having the characters do what they do in a way that tells us more and more about them as the film progresses. I wouldn't call The Predator "subtle" but everything is relative.
If you have a shitty action movie, it'll still have action. Some fantasy movie will still have some fantasy and story telling, no matter how shitty. Even the shittiest B-movies manage to tell a story and have some action, which is fine for the genre, you get some of it.
But with horror the problem is that if you fuck it up, you don't get horror, you get torture porn or reflex training (jump scare). If you don't nail the horror, it seizes to be horror.
For example, I tried going through some of the later Steven Seagal flicks lately. The way they're cut and the pacing make them absolutely boring. The stories they tell aren't cohesive, and the action is the closest thing to stills of Seagal's limbs you'll get before you'd have to call them slideshows. Those are bad action movies, and I suspect that what you call bad action movies are actually just campy/shoestring/"so-bad-they're-funny" yet entertaining action movies.
Same for fantasy. If your fantasy film is utterly mundane, unoriginal and uninspiring it'll fail to deliver the fantastic. Not to mention comedy. If your comedy is not funny what's left is often a really thin plot revolving around unrelatable characters under unbelievable circumstances. Drama film has no drama if you don't care about any of the characters.
I'd still call these horror, action, fantasy, comedy and drama films, respectively. As much as I think it's bad, the intent is obvious, and a bad genre film is just one that was really bad at achieving it.
Shoestrings budget films have existed pretty much as long as motion cameras have been generally available.
But these are specifically created because they are cheap (relatively) to make and sell enough tickets to get into mainstream theatres, which produces much higher profits than other genres on shoestring budgets. Note of course that all of this is the general case - there are obviously exceptions in every direction.
As for "Intelligent Horror" demeaning "normal" horror—I'm not sure I've ever heard people complaining about IDM[1] vs EDM[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_dance_music
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_dance_music
> The term "intelligent dance music" has been widely criticised and rejected by artists associated with the style, including Aphex Twin and µ-Ziq, as elitist and derogatory towards other genres. [...] In 2014, music critic Sasha Frere-Jones observed that the term "is widely reviled but still commonly used".
Half the page is discussing the backlash against the term on the exact same grounds.
The top Horror movies in IMDB with at least 10,000 votes
https://www.imdb.com/search/title?genres=horror&title_type=f...
I personally would go to a more base level, how the fuck is it no writer has been able to copy Harry Potter, there's b/millions in it. (Exception Hunger Games, not.... Dark Materials)
It's formulaic and a book, so lowish cost. A known worldbuild of fantasy with children being the protagonists. Just good writing.
I blame the (university) system, rather than teaching people to write it teaches people what to write. And this flows through to screenplays.
I mean, it's not even respectable enough to be considered in the discussion of the most disrespected genre of film.
At least porn has awards shows.
I mean if we go down that totem pole, then 'still image movies' are even further down.
Exploitation is movies like the infamous "Ilse" which mixed Nazi-fetchism, sadism, torture, castration - basically wallows in the most taboo subjects imaginable.
That's really the one example. It's the same situation where horror movies have to be elevated above the genre to be discussed.
It sometimes seems to fare better as books (Stephen King) or games (Bioshock) rather than movies.
Serious stories happening in a real historical setting are on top. And it goes down as we deviate from this archetype. Fantasy and sci-fi are a step lower, and comedy is rock bottom. Horror is often not serious or realistic, it is meant to entertain, in its own way, so it is right down there with comedy.
Of course, that hierarchy is purely artificial. People enjoy "low tier" movies a lot, and a lot of talent goes into them (to varying degrees of course). But for some reason, you don't want to say it publicly.
I think it dates back to ancient Greece or maybe even earlier. So that's a thing we have to live with I think.
Movies catering to base physical reactions (sexual arousal, fear, laughter) is considered less prestigious. Although intellectual comedy can be pretty prestigious compared to physical comedy. And psychological horror is considered more prestigious than horror based on gore and dismemberment. And suspense is higher than horror I think.
Horror is like the genre where anyone with a video camera fresh out of highschool can produce and somehow get in a bargain bin at any store. The genre has some good stuff, but it's way too flooded with garbage that it's hard to find the good stuff. Some people like the campiness of it, but I just don't have the time to waste on it. In highschool I remember we rented a horror movie because the first name on it was Ron Jeremy and we were like "heh, heh, awesome"! He was in the first 1 minute as a bum, no lines, and died, the rest of the movie was beyond horrible. Those kinds of tactics don't help the genre either.
Yeah, lots of other genres have tons of garbage too, but somehow it doesn't seem like it does to the same extent (just how I've seen things). Maybe it's because Horror has the potential to be awesome, ridiculous or cool, even if it's a shit tier movie, where as a drama just doesn't have the allure without critical acclaim, big names, or notable nudity. There are way more cult followings around horror movies than dramas or others it seems.
I can understand that nobody likes someone else coming into their "scene" and scooping out the best stuff, giving it a respectable note/name, and calling the rest of the baggage, history, and culty stuff garbage.
Naturally! Notable nudity notwithstanding, neutral narratives normally necessitate nixing naivety.
Horror is actually a respected craft, porn not so respected, the other two are no craft and extremely annoying.