Recently, I watched Lights Out (2016) in the cinema and I was really disappointed. The concept of the film, that a creature appears when the lights go out and disappears when the lights go on, seemed brilliant. I still think it has a lot of potential, but the film makes the same mistakes as a lot of other recent horror films. They all show way too much. I get it... a quick jump scare is effective with larger audiences, but do a lot of people list a slasher (in which jump scares are the most important) as their most freighting film experience? No, not really. I think it's rather safe to say that the less someone sees, the scarier the scene gets.
Paranormal Activity (2007) was a huge hit nine years ago. It was the start of a various (very bad) sequels and other 'found-footage-horror' films. The film was popular, because (I think) 'it could happen to anyone'. The 'entity' (it's rather difficult to name it, maybe 'demon'?) of the film is never shown, only doors that open and close and people getting dragged through the hall by invisible hands. The subtlety of the first film is thrown out of the window in the sequels, in the third one (Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)) a bunch of witches appear. After their showing, the film losing its threatening atmosphere. Rationally, most people know that they won't find a huge demon or a witch in their closet or under their bed, but the presence of something evil and innocent is much more likely to appear in your room.
It's not just the Paranormal Activity series that went the wrong way in using way less subtlety. Many filmmakers, apparently, insist on making sequels bigger. Everyone seems to have had some 'bigger-is-better' lessons from Michael Bay. The Purge series (2013 - 2016) is another example. The first one was a home-invasion thriller with an interesting premise. All right, it wasn't spectacularly good, but it was a descent thriller. The second one went from one house to a city, with more storylines and the third one went from city to country with even more (uninteresting) storylines. I think that filmmakers and directors are scared that people won't show up for a comparable sequel to a film that initially work, so they overdo the sequel. After all, in Hollywood, money is the only thing that counts. Money, however, is by no means a guarantee of quality. Low budgets horror films (like The Blair Witch Project (1999) - 60 000 dollar) are often better received than big budgets horror films (The Wolfman (2010) - 170 000 000 dollar) (When I'm speaking of low-budget films, I am of course not referring to B/C/D- films like Sharknado (2013). Films with a small budget simply don't have the means to go 'over-the-top' and often have to show as little as possible, finding original ways to create a scary atmosphere.
Thank God that Jennifer Kent, director of The Babadook (2014), has stated that she has the rights to the story about the Babadook and that won't ever allow a sequel. Of well-received horror films of the last few years, like The Conjuring (2013), Insidious (2010), It Follows (2015) and Oculus (2013), a few got (a) sequel(s) and a few didn't. It's logical that the first two got sequels, because the they grossed, respectively, 259 and 97 million dollars, as opposed to 10 and 47 million dollar for It Follows and Oculus. Ideally (at least, ideally for me) a horror film should earn about 50 million dollar, so there won't be a sequel. A story doesn't have to be repeated and rebooted endlessly, especially because there are so many possibilities in creating new scary stories.
Back to Lights Out (2016), because I think I know the reason why I didn't love the film. The story and the 'villain' (Diana) of the film are really specific. There was a huge backstory to why Diana was harassing the family. There is basically no one in the world in a comparable situation, so there is very little to no thread when you're lying in bed thinking about whether 'it could happen to you'. A horror film will get much more effective, when there is a recognizable (almost random) setting. An example of this is The Conjuring 2 (2016), because a family gets haunted because they coincidentally live in a 'haunted house'. This could happen to, literally, everyone who moves into a new house.
Fortunately, there are still filmmakers (like Jennifer Kent) who value the power of subtlety of horror films and try to protect it. Originality is a big part of this, which is why I prefer original stories over sequels. Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson are great in both The Conjuring films, butt I like watching an interesting new story like It Follows (2015) a lot more. It's not just horror, by the way. From animation (Finding Dory (2016) didn't live up to its predecessor) to action (none of the sequels to Die Hard (1988) live up to the original). By letting new directors take on new, original stories, audiences won't feel like 'been-there-done-that' at every horror film they see.
