Horror films (long)

I hope this is the appropriate forum.  I'm new here and not really certain.  The reason I'm posting this here rather then in the Indie Forum is because I think what I have to say applies to a lesser extent to big budget or "mainstream" films.  I could be wrong, however.

So, recently I was involved in an ultra low budget zombie movie.  I had to quit during production for a variety of reasons, all personal and having nothing to do really with this topic.

The Writer/Director was actually very receptive to my ideas.  He seemed as passionate about the subject as I.  And hopefully the movie itself would have gone well, but I was left to ponder a few things.

The original script called for a group of teens being rescued by soldiers sent out by the government to contain the outbreak of the virus that is the cause of the zombie apocalypse.

The unfortunate thing was that he didn't have enough authentic uniforms or weapons to accomplish that.  He had various military issue firearms, but they were from different eras...such as WW1 and 2, plus Vietnam..and a smattering of more current weapons.  The Jeep was circa 1943.  And he only had one set of BDU's.  I told him that simply because he had these things available doesn't mean he should necessarily use them.

He didn't have a make up artist who could do gore effects, so I told him that it may be best to use B&W.  It's easier I think to set a mood that way as the shadows are deeper and richer, and B&W was more forgiving concerning make up and gore effects.  I told him to watch NOTLD for ideas on how violence could be implied, yet still be effective and how only minimal makeup was required.

There were a few other suggestions, but the gist is that ultimately, he was going to be forced to make many compromises to get this movie completed.  In fact, he sent me an e-mail today explaining that he would have to actually cut back on the speaking roles.

So, my questions are:  Was I correct?  In this day and age with what I would guess or hope is a more sophisticated audience (though I think that perhaps gorehound doesn't necessarily equal sophisticated ) out there....and all the zombie movies being made(everybody with a video camera thinks they can make the next great zombie picture) am I right when I say that implied gore and violence is enough?  Is B&W still acceptable to an audience so long as the story is fantastic and the talent involved competent?  I can still watch Psycho and NOTLD, but I would imagine many people only give lip service to that concept, why else would that colorised, shot for shot remake of Psycho been made?  I guess Gus Van Sant wanted to bring Psycho to a larger audience, but did it work?  It's still not too late to e-mail him with suggestions.  I may not be active on the production anymore, but he seems to value my opinion still.  Would George Romero have done anything differently if he had had a bigger budget?  Should I tell him to ignore me and do what he feels is right at this point?  The movie is no longer my business.

What do you guys think?

I'm a professional lurker for a reason...let me try to order my thoughts in a way which may be easier to understand, since I don't make sense even to myself.

1.  Is B&W an acceptable means of relaying a story to a modern audience. 

2.  Is implied violence and the effects of such enough to satisfy a modern audience?

3.  Should I stay out of his business now, though he seems still to value my opinion?

4.  If 3 above is correct, should I tell him to ignore my previous comments and do what he thinks is best at this point, or wait until he contacts me?

Hopefully edited for clarity and to fix a few spelling errors.

Last edited by sMart (2006-10-19 20:06:25)