Why Modern Horror Keeps Failing. And Somehow Also Thriving?

Horror films have been consistently tanking on review platforms like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes, so why do film directors keep making the same mistake?

One weekend in March 2024, me and my friends bought tickets to see the newly released Blumhouse film Imaginary, a movie about a childhood imaginary friend that eventually turns into a gruesome, toothy monster. It came not long after the release of Night Swim, which had already built some infamy among critics as a slow, confusing, and ultimately forgettable dumpster fire. Knowing that, we were intrigued to see whether Imaginary would follow the same path, and we figured experiencing it in a theater would be the only true way to experience it.

It didn’t disappoint. From unbearably stretched-out dialogue, to predictable jump scares, as well as missing the mark on several jokes, the movie had followed Night Swim’s footsteps perfectly. Imaginary was predictably picked apart by movie critics for the same reasons as Night Swim and landed a 25% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 4.8/10 rating on IMDb.

Despite all that, it ended up grossing well over $43 million worldwide, with a budget of only about $10 million according to IMDB Pro's Box Office Mojo. This contradiction of low quality and high profitability is no accident, but is the direct result of how the horror genre has evolved. Major studios have come to operate in the interest of high profitability, and independent filmmakers have learned to utilize this low-risk, high-reward tactic in order to experiment with their projects. The current surge in poorly received horror films is less about the decline in filmmaking ability, and more about the perfect storm of audience psychology, Hollywood economics, and low budget accessibility.

The Psychology of Horror: Why It Still Works

Horror has always been one of the most successful genres to invoke involuntary reactions. Unlike comedy or drama, both of which rely heavily on audience interpretation, horror taps into our fight or flight response, a deeply ingrained trait that we all share to varying degrees. When a film builds tension correctly, heart rates spike, muscles tense, and adrenaline surges. This physiological response is what keeps audiences coming back, even when the films themselves are objectively flawed.

Historically, horror has been achieved through proper atmosphere and anticipation rather than shocking spectacles. As the legendary horror film director Alfred Hitchcock once said, “There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it.” This principle applies to many iconic horror films when tension was carefully constructed through careful pacing, silence, and buildup. 

Few films display this principle better than The Exorcist, released in 1973. The film demonstrated just how powerful the physiological element of horror could be. The cultural reactions to the films resulted in mass hysteria, according to filmmaker Danny Draven: “I think most horror fans would agree that William Peter Blatty’s adaptation of his novel The Exorcist (1973) is the scariest movie made on the subject of demonic possession. It has had the most psychological impact on its audience since its release in 1973, and it also created the most controversy. People fainted and went into hysterics at the theaters, actress Linda Blair had death threats from religious zealots, and Christian evangelist Billy Graham even claimed an actual demon was living in the celluloid of the film reels.”

Major studios have come to operate in the interest of high profitability, and independent filmmakers have learned to utilize this low-risk, high-reward tactic in order to experiment with their projects.

This hysteria was caused by the deeply rooted fear about religion and possession at the time, and was made possible through the proper building of an engaging atmosphere, created through careful pacing, and disorienting sound design. The uncompromising possession happening to a healthy family in the safety of their own home made this horror feel disturbingly plausible to most upon release. 

Today however, you will find that the horror films of 2024- 2026 fall flat on their predictable formulas with loud noises, quick cuts, and repetitive scares. While these techniques can trigger a sudden reaction, they lack the horror of anticipation that defined earlier masterpieces. Even when poorly executed , these methods work on a very basic level, and regardless of the criticism that follows, people's bodies will still react. Oftentimes, that is enough.

Big Studios and the Business of Mediocrity

The second major factor playing a role in the surge of low quality horror films is the business model of the large-scale studios. Companies like Blumhouse Productions have  become synonymous with the current state of horror. While the studio has released highly rated films like Get Out and The Purge, it has also developed a reputation for releasing low budget, throwaway films like Imaginary and Nightswim. 

The horror genre is the easiest to exploit because movies are relatively cheap and quick to produce, and almost always turn a profit. A $10 million horror film only needs moderate box office success to be financially viable, which often results in studios hastily replicating a successful film's profit.

Studios build off of previously successful franchises knowing that title recognition alone can drive ticket sales up. Even if a sequel or spin off is poorly received, audiences are often curious enough to see it anyway. This trend creates a culture of studios pumping out films under familiar titles in order to draw theatre attendance.

Horror films also excel in their ability to maintain theatre attendance in a world of streaming. Watching a scary movie in theaters amplifies its effects by creating a surrounding and immersive atmosphere, making even mediocre films feel more intense.  Additionally, people just like to be scared in the presence of other people for the shared experience and comfort.

The Indie Explosion

While major studios dominate the mainstream theatre space, independent filmmakers have also contributed to the surge in horror films. The specific characteristics of horror film production have made the filmmaking process more accessible to self-funded producers. With relatively low cost equipment and editing software, almost anyone can produce a horror film.

According to Professor William Clay of West Valley College, these factors are key drivers of indie horror’s popularity. Clay explained that why horror is the go-to choice for indie film production is the fact that it requires fewer resources than similar genres. A horror film doesn't require an elaborate set, costume design, or expensive effects. These loose limitations are oftentimes utilized in film production even from big name studios like Blumhouse. By not showing the monster or threat, films are able to cut costs while simultaneously building tension.

One film that utilized these elements perfectly was Mark Fischbach's self funded project, Iron Lung. It was inspired by a short indie horror game that takes place in a small airtight submarine throughout the entire experience. The film’s only change in scenery comes from occasional photos of the area in front of the sub, and mysterious figures outside the tiny porthole. The setting is occasionally broken by CGI shots of the monster outside the sub, totaling up to no more than 30 seconds of screentime in a film lasting a little over 2 hours. All this being said, the film only cost a little over $3million dollars to make, and was Fischbach's first professional film. It ended up grossing over  $50 million according to IMDB Pro's Box Office Mojo.

The second factor behind horror's low risk costs is that casting is much less restrictive. By utilizing unknown actors, indie film producers can reduce expenses, maintain the film’s mystique, while also creating a more authentic film. According to Professor Clay, the crudeness of some films' production make people wonder if the film they were watching might be real life creating this horror sub-genre, the “found footage” movie. When audiences believe, even for a second, that a film is real, fear intensifies.

One of the most notable films to display this element of ambiguity is the Blair Witch Project (1999). This, and other similar films, set the foundations for the “grunge” aesthetic with shaky cameras, poor lighting, and minimal polish that can make a film feel mistakably real. If done correctly, the crude presentation can oftentimes blur the line between reality and acting, leading some viewers to question if what they're watching is staged or not.

This phenomenon has persevered into the modern stage of indie horror, where films appear raw or unpolished. This technique can still create buzz because they feel different from studio productions, but it has also led to the oversaturation of "found footage" content, as more creators attempt to replicate the formula. 

Are Films Actually Getting Worse?

Despite the common perception that horror films have declined in quality, Professor Clay argues otherwise. When asked if he feels that movie quality has changed since the 1980s, he states that it has not declined, but rather “adjusted and adapted." He emphasizes that the foundations established in the 1970’s films still influences modern films to an extent, and that the medium itself is "flourishing."

This perspective challenges the idea that modern horror is inherently worse than before, and instead suggests that audiences are experiencing a wider range of quality due to the amount of horror content being produced. With more films being made than ever before, there are bound to be some bad, or experimental projects, amongst the well thought-out, and calculated ones.

Its simplicity in concept and low-risk execution makes horror an ideal testing ground for new film maker’s ideas.

When asked, Clay also points out that horror's decline in reception is not due to past horror techniques losing their edge. He claims that the difference lies in the execution of these elements. Directors who understand these core elements can still utilize these timeless techniques to create an effective horror film. On the contrary, films that rely solely on surface level tricks, often fall short on their horror.

A potential solution to this lies in reemphasizing the fundamentals of horror. Studios and indie producers alike could benefit from focusing less on the quantity of scares, films, or dollars grossed and instead focus on the principals that makes horror truly resonate with its audience.

An Amalgamation of Forces

The current state of horror is not the result of a single common trend, but rather an amalgamation of its inclusivity. The genre is amongst the most economically accessible for film creators alike, allowing a wide spectrum of directors to create projects, quality or not. Its simplicity in concept and low-risk execution makes horror an ideal testing ground for new film maker’s ideas.

Low quality horror films will likely continue to show up in theaters and movie stores, but they are not necessarily a sign of decline but instead a byproduct of a thriving genre. Amongst the surface of predictable jumpscares and lousy scripts lies the same fundamentals that made audiences faint during initial showing of The Exorcist: slow building tension, immersive sound quality, and anticipation.

As long as those fundamentals exist, horror films will persevere, whether in the form of misfires or masterpieces. Studios will continue producing films with varying degrees of quality

because the mystique behind what comes next is what keeps most fans coming back for more.