Horror Movies Aren't Doomed, And Everyone Saying So Is Just An Idiot

For horror fans, October is sacred. Commonfolk wear costumes, visit haunted attractions, and celebrate all things festively creepy en masse. Television channels, streaming platforms, and theaters dedicate overwhelming program blocks of Halloween favorites. Horror is en vogue, but with that attention comes the invariable onslaught of taste-maker trades showing their whole-ass behinds. Those who treat horror as unworthy for 11 other calendar months suddenly have opinions about horror's "resurgence," "death," or incoming "fatigue." It's a clockwork tradition that riles internet hordes — with good reason.

This year, two specific articles dominated genre discussions despite their wildly unsubstantiated and data-ignorant claims. The Hollywood Reporter warned that studio executives are worried about "Horror Fatigue," while Vulture opted for the headline "Horror Movies Are Just Trying To Survive." I hate the phrase "Horror Fatigue"; it's a made-up phenomenon that's been disproven year after year. Yet, sites like THR and Vulture approach horror-centric journalism with a goldfish's attention span.

"[Horror Fatigue] is a preposterous notion because you're talking bout a whole genre," says multi-hyphenate Michael Varrati. "We don't hear anybody refer to any other genre in this way," he elaborates. "There's no such thing as drama fatigue or romance fatigue because a discerning audience understands that's a tentpole descriptor for something multifaceted that fills many roles." Varrati's experience as an analyst and creator puts him in a unique position to observe how horror continues to thrive behind the camera, journalistically, and everywhere else. "As long as audiences want to engage with stories, they will want to engage with all kinds of stories."

"Horror is so much more than what outsiders perceive it to be," adds beloved actor and genre champion Barbara Crampton. "Horror encompasses what it means to be human, and the storytelling barriers the genre has broken down keep expanding." From Crampton's legendary performance as Megan Halsey in Stuart Gordon's "Re-Animator" to her resurgence as one of modern horror's matriarchs post Adam Wingard's "You're Next," Crampton has witnessed the genre transform again and again. "Not only is horror fatigue not true, but the genre will keep growing stronger as we tell more stories that reflect humanity."

The flimsy basis of THR's argument is that when "Smile" was released in 2022, it opened to minimal competition and dominated the October box office ($217.4 million worldwide). This year, Parker Finn's "Smile 2" opened against Damien Leone's "Terrifier 3," and while it still outperformed Cineverse's indie slasher that could, it faced formidable opposition that ate into its profits (currently $109 million worldwide).

That's...it.

Apparently, the horror genre starts with "Smile" and stops after "Terrifier 3?" The only on-record quoted source in THR's article is Comscore's senior media analyst Peter Dergarabedian, who notes that 2023's early horror offerings ("M3GAN," "Cocaine Bear," "Scream VI," and "Evil Dead Rise") grossed $585 million worldwide, while 2024's early horror offerings — which he highlights as "Night Swim," "Imaginary," "Late Night With the Devil," "Immaculate," "The First Omen," and "Abigail" — will end their combined runs with $235 million.

In a bubble, these sure are statistics — but to sound an alarm bell based on non-IP titles and smaller indies not meeting the box office triumphs of viral sensations like "M3GAN" or dependable IPs like "Scream VI" or "Evil Dead Rise" is asinine. "Night Swim" and "Imaginary" were slaughtered by critics before release, festival darling "Late Night With the Devil" opened on 1,043 screens before hitting Shudder's streaming service, "Immaculate" broke Neon's opening day box office record with $5m (from 2,354 locations), "The First Omen" netted $53m despite facing prequel adversity, and sure, we failed "Abigail." But, let's be reasonable here — in what world were niche titles like "Late Night With the Devil" and "Immaculate" supposed to outperform cherished horror namesakes like "Scream VI" and "Evil Dead Rise?"

Former film critic Eric D. Snider is so real for noting, "In headlines like this, the translation of 'Hollywood' is always 'this writer personally, or maybe the assigning editor.'"

Comparison is the enemy of progress. Where Dergarabedian considers "Late Night With the Devil" in a batch of underperformers, IFC Films would argue otherwise. The film scored IFC Films' highest-grossing opening weekend ever with $2.8m at the domestic box office, and upon its streaming premiere, logged the biggest opening weekend ever for both Shudder and AMC+. Crampton adds, "Low-budget movies like 'In A Violent Nature' have done so well, 'Late Night with the Devil' too, and 'Terrifier 3' is breaking records." She's right — "In A Violent Nature" secured IFC Films' second-best opening months after "Late Night With the Devil." The same company turned Kyle Edward Ball's gaze-into-darkness experiment "Skinamarink" into an impressive $2.1m success given its $15,000 budget (after being pirated). For weeks, horror fans were abuzz with "Skinamarink" clips, memes, and banter, propelling Ball to direct his next feature for A24.

Not to mention, "Smile" faced plenty of adversity in 2022 (as a September release, if we're splitting hairs). "Halloween Ends" opened to abysmal reviews on October 14th, yet still generated $104m worldwide despite streaming simultaneously on paid tiers of Peacock for 60 days. Shudder offered its subscribers reasons to stay home by releasing "V/H/S/99," "Deadstream," "Dark Glasses," "She Will," and "Ressurection" as its Halloween slate. Hulu trotted out David Bruckner's well-received "Hellraiser" remake. Prime Video dropped "Run Sweetheart Run." Netflix added "Mr. Harrigan's Phone," "Old People," "The Midnight Club," "The Curse of Bridge Hollow," "The School for Good and Evil," "Guillermo del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities," and "Wendell & Wild." "Barbarian" over-performed in its first weekend with $10 million, and "Orphan: First Kill" attracted $44m worldwide despite releasing limited/VOD/streaming in the U.S. "Nope" wrangled up $172.3 m worldwide ... need I continue?

"If people are buying it, is there an over-saturation?" asks Film Producer and Rustic Films founder David Lawson Jr.

It's funny how "Longlegs" isn't mentioned by THR, which leapfrogged "Immaculate" by making $10 million on its first day (including $3 million from Thursday night previews, both records for Neon) on its way to a $109 million worldwide gross (passing "Parasite" as Neon's prized earner). I guess we're picking and choosing to game data pools?

The THR article adds in parentheses: (Little-discussed fact: The unrated "Terrifier 2" actually opened against the first "Smile," but it only booked about 770 theaters, with most cinemas only offering one evening showtime and banning it from playing on Sunday. It didn't even crack $1m in its opening but ended up gaining traction and became a hit.)

That's not a "little-known fact." The success of "Terrifier 2" dictated the headlining theatrical rollout for "Terrifier 3." Much attention was spent applauding "Terrifier 2" as an evolution of Leone's ultra-gory indie "Terrifier" into this viable wide-release franchise. That "Terrifier 2" ultimately grossed $15.7m is a testament to horror fans and their ravenous hunger for more releases, because Art the Clown's disciples willed the "Terrifier 3" wide release into existence while simultaneously lining Paramount's pockets as "Smile" chewed through tickets.

With an astounded tone, the article tallies "26 wide horror releases this year" and "already 18 next year" — quotes attributed to an anonymous top studio executive. And ... your point? With even the most basic cursory glance at the number of medium-to-large theatrical horror releases per year over the last decade, there were 25+ in 2023. An easy 20+ in 2022, including many notable streaming releases ("Hellraiser," "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"). Streaming dominated 2021, for obvious reasons. 2020 started strong with titles like "Underwater," "The Hunt," and "The Invisible Man," until COVID-19 shuttered theaters. But 2019? Hovering right around 25+. Back in 2015? Also 25+. In 2005? Nearly 25. So, the real question is, why does that stat matter now?

We're eons beyond horror being defined by its theatrical output. Those titles — Blumhouse's endless reboots, James Wan's The Conjuring Universe, etc., etc. — are essential pillars that dominate popular culture. That said, the "Terrifier" franchise hatched from a supporting character role in the 2008 short film "The 9th Circle" even before Art's horror anthology segment in "All Hallow's Eve" and finally, in 2016, the wildly divisive practical effects showcase "Terrifier." Horror-first streaming services like Shudder, Screambox, and Found provide alternate viewing experiences that pull attention from multiplexes to in-home setups — but this household competition isn't new. Streamers have replaced the VOD pipeline, a popular release method for independent horror films. While I've previously written about the possible dangers of genre oversaturation (roughly 40 new horror movies dropped in October of 2020), horror fans have proven that more options don't mean a lick as long as quality content is released. We're a different breed; horror fans always crave more.

Not long ago, I wrote about why Blumhouse is poised to shatter its single-year box office record in 2025. THR is spelling doom for horror-first studios, but I'll bet my non-existent house on above-and-beyond returns. Blumhouse has so far scheduled Leigh Whannell's "Wolf Man," Jaume Collet-Serra's "The Woman in the Yard," Christopher Landon's "Drop," Gerard Johnstone's "M3GAN 2.0," an untitled "Insidious" film, Scott Derrickson's "The Black Phone 2," and Emma Tammi's "Five Nights at Freddy's 2." That's a lot of movies! But, more importantly, Blumhouse has stacked its deck with top performers.

THR reluctantly mentions how "Five Nights at Freddy's" salvaged Blumhouse's box office in 2023, but they didn't highlight its astounding $297 million payday. (They did mention "The Exorcist: Believer" as a franchise-killing disappointment but neglected to emphasize it still banked $136 million worldwide.) No "Insidious" film has grossed under $100m worldwide (2023's "Insidious: The Red Door" became the franchise's highest earner), Whannell's "The Invisible Man" modernization hauled $144 million worldwide, and Derrickson's "The Black Phone" grabbed $161 million. "M3GAN?" $179 million worldwide.

Horror fans reward filmmakers who treat horror with respect, but also love an addictive marketing campaign and our genre icons. There's a herd mentality that prospers on word-of-mouth, which takes me back to Blumhouse's early struggles in 2024. Original horror titles are a gamble, and I agree with Jason Blum's quote in Vulture's article: "Everyone around the movie business, fans, and film Twitter demand originals. But the audience does not want originals. They want horror movies that they know." It's hard to argue this fact, but I'd tweak the phrasing a tad. Audiences do want originals, just worthwhile originals.

Blum can complain about originals failing all he wants, but the reality is "Night Swim," "Imaginary," and "Afraid" — an AI thriller that was unceremoniously dumped, neutered by hack-job editing, and barely marketed to the point where audiences didn't know it was even released — were not well-received. Those titles still made over $100 million combined (even though "Afraid," unsurprisingly, was a $12 million bomb). What about Blumhouse's James McAvoy-led "Speak No Evil" remake, the studio's only theatrical Halloween season release in 2024? With an 83% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, its worldwide gross totals $76.4 million — nearly three-fourths of "Night Swim," "Imaginary," and "AfrAId." This is a microcosmic example, but you can use the same argument to explain how "Barbarian" became a hit out of nowhere (or why Blumhouse's poorly-reviewed "Firestarter" adaptation, based on a familiar Stephen King property that's already been adapted once, tanked at the box office).

To be fair, Vulture's article acknowledges a few valid points, but its title, "Horror Movies Are Just Trying to Survive," draws ire. Horror has been a savior of the COVID-19 theatrical era. Horror is also viable no matter the season. Horror's fanbase is unique in that festivals can run year-round and sell out screenings, conventions draw crowds of vendors and patrons alike, and competition is friendly. Credit to Bloody Disgusting and Cineverse's Brad Miska for poking fun at the "Horror is Dead" hearsay circulated every October. But then there's Paramount's Marc Weinstock, stating, "There's just so much horror out there that audiences are feeling sated by the sheer volume of it." An odd statement from a studio executive responsible for two of this year's biggest horror hits? Moving on, producer Roy Lee ("It," "It Chapter Two," "The Grudge," "Barbarian," "Strange Darling") posits that "Terrifier 3" will cause an influx of copycats that water down the market and cause another dip.

"There's going to be a lot of copycat 'Terrifier' movies next year that will do terribly," the producer told Vulture. "It's going to be perceived as a dead genre. If it's just people going in to follow a trend, those cookie-cutter movies will fail. You have to innovate."

Is that not the golden rule of filmmaking in general? Genres evolve based on trends, and horror is no different. Movies like "Black Christmas," "Halloween," and "Friday the 13th" are responsible for kickstarting the Golden Era of slashers. Wes Craven's "Scream" brought meta-slashers into prominence, which would dominate for a shorter duration. The 2000s belonged to Platinum Dunes' remake avalanche and the rise of "Saw." Then came A24 and its, sigh, "Elevated Horror" focus or Trauma Horror classification, veering away from the slaughter-happy sensibilities of gruesome, kill-first releases. All of those periods were inundated with copycats, yet the genre still marches onward.

Viewing "Terrifier 3" as a danger to the genre is ... odd? Vaguely pissy, if anything? Cineverse's mutilation-forward "Terrifier 3" succeeded by coloring outside studio lines. It's the highest-grossing unrated theatrical release ($63 million worldwide), dodged MPA restrictions, and lacks the substantial advertising funds of mainstream studio machines. Lee talks about copycats like "The Blair Witch Project" didn't inspire "Paranormal Activity," Oren Peli's found-footage superhit that rocketed Blumhose onto the horror scene. There will always be copycats, and yes, we're about to get some underfunded slashers without coherent stories that will suck the life out of the room, but that's not going to deter horror fans. The horror genre is built on mimicry and inspiration, following trends with fingers crossed. Art's rise as a modern horror figurehead is by sheer will. It inspires hope that originality can flourish outside rigid studio templates checking boxes, but even more so, all flavors of horror can co-exist.

The success of "Terrifier 3" is a positive outcome because it was made by an independent creator who delivered his vision and proved that something self-motivated, something that he believed in, could work, confirms Varrati. But, coming from someone enmeshed in Los Angeles' horror production circles, he adds another silver lining: "Maybe the reasons for impending knockoffs aren't as altruistic, but in an industry of people who need work and desire to create, it opens up the door to more possibility." We speak of oversaturation in monetary terms, but rarely from a creator's perspective. "For every 'Jaws,' we get 10 exploitation shark movies that take a Great White to space or make him into Santa Claus. Those movies find an audience, even if it's not as big, and they create jobs for actors, crew members, production houses, the works," adds Varrati.

Leone's "Terrifier 3" may be the thrust toward a 2020s slasher recharge, but that doesn't mean the genre fails if audiences aren't on board. Horror can be comedic, romantic, straightforward scary, or dramatic. Better yet, horror fans span countless tastes and preferences. The vast multitude of horror approaches means something for everyone. This idea that everyone will copy "Terrifier 3" until audiences look elsewhere is preposterous because while there might be an uptick in slashers, other horror subgenres will still be there to cleanse palates.

Take this year and my five favorite horror movies: "The Substance," "Exhuma," "Stopmotion," "Infested," and "It's What's Inside." A monstrous Hollywood satirization, a culturally rich Korean possession tale, a stop-motion plight of the creative, an arachnophobe's nightmare, and a hilarious body-swap parlor game. What other genre boasts that kind of range?

Crampton adds an interesting point: "What you might call high-brow actors have been getting into the horror game for a while now." Horror's long initiated careers of now A-list names like Leonardo DiCaprio in "Critters 3," but let's also highlight the reverse. "We just saw Hugh Grant come out in 'Heretic' and Demi Moore in 'The Substance.' I believe that will only pave the way for more and more names of this caliber to embrace horror," says Crampton.

That's what's always missing in these articles: a refusal to engage with the horror genre beyond the screen. "Why is it always horror [under fire]? That's a sociological issue. When horror fails, people rush to point the finger," questions Varrati. Horror is granted no grace when the needle downslides, like pundits are foaming at the mouth to declare the genre finally deceased. "We're always undervalued, like we're misfits — I'm fine with it," reassures Lawson. "Horror is doing what other genres can't do — and it's much more fun to watch, blood and guts everywhere." This won't be the first time horror fearmongering will occur, nor will it be the last. Box office reports only tell so much of a story, and without bringing receipts, these articles misunderstand what horror fans already know: you can't keep a good genre down.

You think this is a f***in' costume? This is a way of life. I'm tired of people speaking for me and ignoring data beyond a few months. "I don't see us slowing down; I only see us gaining momentum," encourages Crampton. Talk to me when no horror movie breaks even for two years, and even then, I'll ask: "Why?" Horror fans will be the first to turn their back when they sniff out fraud, but also celebrate the hell out of the movies we love (go watch "Dude Bro Party Massacre III"). Lee hits the nail on the head: "If you make a great horror movie, it's going to be seen by everybody." It's (usually) that simple, sans random bummers, because box office reporting will always expose its unicorns.

Horror fatigue is rubbish. The horror genre isn't treading water, the success of "Terrifier 3" is excellent for the industry, and yes, if you think horror movies are doomed, you're a clown.