I don't think that writers of horror movies bother with the character development that much a lot of the time. It may be because they don't see the point since they are killing them off in 2 pages anyway. Or perhaps that they know even if they do create totally original and convincing characters people will mainly remember the Gore so they just decide whats the point..

I'm not sure what the reason is.. but it is rare to get the best of both.... writing and Gore.. Lucky I like cheesy movies.

There are not many 'torture porn' movies, and this journalist-coined category has only been singled out in the first place to help people deal with the resurgence of hardcore exploitation.

This time around the acting is better, the special effects are better, the stories are less ridiculous, and perhaps some might say the themes are reflective of our increasingly cruel and casually violent societies.

I fail to see any need for apathy just because characters are in overtly violent movies. Wolf Creek, Saw, Hostel, Turistas, Captivity et al are all well made and thrilling films - they are about spectacle, but they are also about the people (tortured in the end or not).

Lack of interest in characters is better directed to 80s gore/slashers, which were far less refined and intense.

Though it is interesting to hear that contemporary exploitative violence might be breeding robotic and unsympathetic reactions from some of today's cinema audiences, which if not down to the 'pander to me or else' factor, could be indicative of a general decline in attitudes within young society.

So... do we give them more, or less 'torture porn' to try and fix the problem?

I definitely agree. I find absolutely no issue with these films making no attempt to create sympathetic and/or likable characters. In fact, making the characters being 2-dimensional stereotypes are definitely the point.

With Hostel, for example, the first kid to go is arguably the most sympathetic character (or at least, stereotypically "sympathetic" as being the "innocent" naive one of the group). Eli Roth specifically created 2-dimensional generic characters so as to focus more on the horror of the film (which is the torture - what man would do to himself).

But, again, the point isn't that we care about the characters. The point is that we're focusing more on the horror of the torture and the actions that take place. With Saw especially, we weren't meant to become attached to the characters, what we take away from the film is the shock and awe of the torture and murders themselves, not a feeling of loss over their deaths.

Part of having characters that we ultimately don't care about also slightly breaks down the fourth wall and and turns the attention to the audience. As an audience, you are part of the movie as well. Directors create horror films because they know that people will watch them. We are just as responsible for the horror films as the directors are, which is an interesting view on society.

So, honestly, I'm not saying that these are ground-breaking AMAZING films, but they definitely have a place in cinema (they have for a while), and the fact that they are permeating so quickly and easily is more a reflection of the audience as a whole - what we're watching. Not the directors.

Who cares if Clive Barker doesn't like new horror movies. Older artists will always have issue with what is new and popular, especially if it deviates from what was once the standard of "Good" or "Quality." I'm sure that when Hellraiser and Candyman came out they raised some eyebrows of the previous Horror Creators. Society changes. Art changes. Like it or not. That's what happens.

So, because someone doesn't put effort into writing good characters, that makes it alright? If they used the same rationale and opted to not bother writing a coherent plot, would that be alright, too? Well, The Beyond is really popular around here...

I challenge these newer horror filmmakers to make better stuff!

I like a crappy movie too. But when the trend is that garbage is ALL that's being made, I say, enough stagnation!

I don't go to the circus to see someone drink milk or iron a shirt. It's way too easy to do those things. I want to see these people do something difficult, like build a believable character. Suspend disbelief in an outlandish story.

As a writer/director/visual effects artist, I know when real effort is being made, and when someone is doing fancy footwork to distract me from the fact that the "product" is just a blob of crap. I demand quality from these people. I don't like plunking down money for crap over and over again.

Did I use the word "alright" ?

See, I think that's the main point here... It IS rare to get the best of both... Spend too much time on character development and it takes too long to get into the horror action... OR if you spend too much time with bad character development, that's an issue too...

And by the way... This debate is being originated by Clive Barker. In light of Hellraiser, do you remember the rat-faced woman with bad hair feeding her undead lover...

OR

Do you remember the Cenobites?

Why even concentrate on anything BUT the Cenobites?

It doesn't seem like we have progressed much from 'gore for gore's sake is insulting to me', and 'gore without plot is insulting to me'. I think some people are constantly missing the point.

Look at it this way: like the Italian zombie movies of the 70s/80s, 'torture porn' films are about spectacle above plot. In The Beyond for example, narrative function gives way to elaborate set-pieces. It is a conscious descision based on economic and aesthetic factors - narrative becomes a simple pretext for spectacle. That is the point.

Modern exploitation has higher production values and often manages to combine more raw (Wolf Creek, Hostel) and ambitious (Saw, Haute Tension) narratives with big set-pieces. So even if audiences still cannot find it within themselves to give much about the fates of characters in (or because of) a 'torture porn' movie, there is always still the spectacle to enjoy.

For horror fans at least, everyone should be a winner here - unless of course they have curiously 'higher' demands which so far I have yet to see adequately explained.

Oh, I'm definitely agreeing with you here. The spectacle is crux of the film as well as turning the camera around on the audience who is watching the spectacle. The films are just as much about the audience as they are about the spectacle itself.

If the idea is to create and emphasize spectacle, exploit the horrors that people can do to each other... Than there is also the spotlight on people who watch these spectacles, the horror audience who welcomes it with open arms.

Your post had a tone of justification, which implies that you think it is "alright."