# Is what you CAN'T see really more scary? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 27, 2003, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672 "2003-06-27T01:15:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/61 "2003-06-29T13:04:01Z")
I haven’t actually read King’s _Danse Macabre_. Is he discussing only scary _stories_ or do his theories extend to movies as well? I see nobody has really answered my question about the classic horror movies that showed plenty of monster and were still considered extremely scary when they were released. Have audiences just become so jaded since then that nothing today can possibly be as scary as what we imagine? Or were audiences back then just so lacking in imagination that anything slightly strange or eerie would cause them to be afraid? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Trigonal Planar_ > **See, I disagree with your analysis of that scene in JP. To me, the scariest point is when the kids look out the window and see that the lamb is gone. THIS is the height of tension: When you sit there thinking of the terrible, horrible things this could mean. When you realize just how wrong the world is. To me, the revealing of the T-Rex is the denoument: Its the release of the tension.** There’s a difference between tension and fright. Yes, not showing the monster _at first_ builds the tension, suspense and sense of dread, but this just _heightens_ the scariness of the monster when it is revealed. If the “monster” turns out to be nothing more then the cat, the tension is released. If, however, the monster is shown to be something truly horrifying, then the tension is not released – it is _consummated_. Again, though, this only works of the monster that is revealed is actually scary. I agree that _Signs_ was a very scary movie as long as they didn’t show the aliens, because the aliens wren’t particularly scary when seen. _Pitch Black_ and _Jurassic Park_, on the other hand, also had moments of suspense and tension with unseen terrors, but these movies proved ultimately to be scarier than _Signs_ because the terrors, when finally shown, turned out to be truly terrifying. Nothing was “released” when the T-Rex finally attacked – instead, my sense of terror went into overdrive. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Mirror Image egamI rorriM_ > > \*\*Imagine you’re camping. You hear twigs cracking outside your tent. HOLY CRAP WHAT WAS THAT? > > If you knew it was just a raccoon, you’d be able to sleep easily…but you don’t know. It could be a bear, it would be a deranged killer…it could be anything.\*\* Actually, if I’m out camping and hear a twig snap, my first thought is that it is an animal of some sort, perhaps a racoon, or else somebody heading to the bushes to take a leak. As a kid, hearing such a noise would have scared me, but that’s because my head was filled with the images of 1000 different monster movies. It wasn’t that I thought the noise could be “anything.” Instead, I would be thinking that the noise could be a particular scary monster I saw on T.V. Had I not seen those movies, I would have assumed it was something innocuous. As an adult, I came to better distinguish between fantasy and reality, so I no longer get scared of the dark. Regards, Barry ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f07891/32.png) [@Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Plastic_Ninja)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/62 "2003-06-29T14:28:54Z")
I think it utterly depends on the _type_ of movie you’re talking about. Jurassic Park is about big huge dinosaurs. So _not_ showing big huge dinosaurs would be silly. 28 Days Later (I love this movie) is about zombies. Not showing zombies would be silly. The Blair Witch Project (which could’ve been done better) was NOT about the evil nasty witch that’s hiding in the woods. It’s about three people making a venture into unknown territory and getting creamed. There’s a difference, I think, between a monster movie and a horror movie. Monster movies are a subset of horror movies, usually, but horror movies don’t necessarily have a “monster” – and if they do, they may not be “monster movies”. Jurassic Park is a monster movie. Godzilla is a monster movie. Dog Soldiers (love that flick!) is a monster movie. Silence of the Lambs, for as much as Lecter is a monster, is a psychological thriller. Fallen (in my opinion one of the best horror movies I’ve ever seen) is not a monster movie, but how else could you describe the antagonist? That’s another psychological thriller. The focus of a monster movie is the monster. The focus of horror movies that are not monster movies is the characters involved. In a horror movie that isn’t a monster movie, it’s often a mistake to show too much of the villain, or at least too much of him being “monstrous”. Fallen, por ejemplo, would not have been nearly so terrifying (to me, at least) if they’d shown the antagonist’s true form. And considering what the villain was, he could’ve been a mighty scary CGI menace. Take 28 Days Later. The zombies are scary as hell when they get on screen, absolutely. But much scarier is the frequent little swish across the screen of something moving very fast…and out of sight. You wonder – did I imagine that? Was that just a bush or an animal or something? And the hairs on the back of your neck begin to stand up…😃 ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/63 "2003-06-29T14:53:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Little Plastic Ninja \* > **I think it utterly depends on the _type_ of movie you’re talking about.** I agree completely. I think however, that the whole “it’s scarier _not_ to show the monster” argument is, by definition, talking about monster movies. Yes, there are plenty of scary movies that don’t involve monsters at all, but in those cases it really doesn’t make sense to talk about “showing” what is scary in the first place. Whenever somebody says that it’s scarier to let the audience imagine what is scary rather than showing it, I think they are invariably talking about monster movies. To beat a thoroughly dead horse that I’ve mentioned in other threads, I recently saw a made-for-TV movie called “Disappearance” starring Susan Dey and Harry Hamlin. It was very effective in building the suspense and tension as the family was stalked by some unseen horror throughout the movie. At the end, however, the horror was never revealed and the scares were therefore dissipated rather than consummated. You kept waiting and waiting to see what could possibly be after them, and then nothing was ever shown. So yes, filmmakers should tease the audience with glimpses and shadows at first, building the suspense, tension and dread before finally revealing the monster. But a failure to reveal the monster is, in my opinion, a flaw caused by an inability to depict a sufficently scary critter, and not a sign of cinematic genius. In other words, when a filmmaker says he purposely chose _not_ to reveal monster because “everybody knows that what you can’t see is much scarier,” I respond, “Uh-huh, and I bet you think the emperor really is wearing a magical suit of clothing that can only be seen by wise people, right?” Again, though, I am obviously only referring to monster movies. There _was_ no “monster” to reveal in _Fallen_, and so it was scary without having the monster be revealed. Barry ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/64 "2003-06-30T14:01:46Z")
I’d still like to know whether **Cervaise** (or anybody else who accepts the “less is more” theory of scary movies) thought that the monsters depicted in _Pitch Black_ and _Jurassic Park_ were scary, in spite of the fact that they were fully shown. Barry ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/65 "2003-06-30T15:28:05Z")
Pitch black? Feh… I wasn’t scared because they were exactly what they meant to be, rip offs of Alien. That scene worked for a second and only in the “Holy Shit trhere is a lot and he’s boned” way. The Monsters themselves are not that firghtening. I’ve seen that creature and gotten used to him, nothing truly scary I’d seen them before. As for the Monsters of the Universal pictures in the 30s and 40s I submit that the over exposure killed what was supposed to be scary. How many years did it take for the monster In Frankenstien to become a joke in Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstien? The moment of any horror ended after that first close up of the Monster and after which he became a familar face. Is anyone scared by the Universal Monsters any more? Not likely and that isn’t because we are more sophisticated or self back patting nonsense like that . It is because they have been exposed in full and there isn’t anything left to them to frighten us. The exposure takes any shock or horror from them. Want more modern equivilents: Try Freddy Kruger, the Shape, Jason are any of these guys remotely scary any more? Showing them in full takes away any power they had to scare. ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/66 "2003-06-30T15:37:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by godzillatemple \* > **I haven’t actually read King’s _Danse Macabre_. Is he discussing only scary _stories_ or do his theories extend to movies as well?** In _Danse Macabre_, King discusses horror in all genres; film and print and even comics. Highly recommended, as you seem to be interested in the field. In reading through the OP, there’s something that occurred to me about the movie _Aliens_. Though it’s mostly an action-adventure-thriller sort of film, not really a horror film overall, it does have some very scary parts. One of the scariest parts of the movie, and perhaps the finest scene in the film, is the Marines’ first sortie into the facility, and their subsequent firefight on the way out. For a large segment of that scene, you’re not seeing what’s going on first-hand, you’re seeing it through the eyes of the Marines’ cameras, as they are transmitting back to the transport. Through the television screens, you can see flashes of gunfire and blurred motion, you can hear the screams of the Marines as they’re fighting and getting killed, and you see screen after screen go black as the steady hum of the flatline takes over. But bear in mind, in this scene you actually see _very little_. It’s not until later that you start seeing a lot more of the aliens themselves. Of course, if you’ve seen the first one, you already know what they look like. But you have no ideas of numbers until much later. The “futile escape” scene is another good example, in which for a long time we see only what that Marines see: blips on their motion detectors telling them that the aliens are coming… a _lot_ of them. Perhaps the best part of this one is when someone says, “That’s _in the room_!” but the room is empty. Then they look up. To me, the point when they look up is far more frightening than when they actually see the creatures crawling towards them through the air ducts. And a final scene, this one only in the Special Edition version of the film. At one point, the Marines set up motion-sensitive rail guns pointing down a hallway, which would fire if anything moved in front of them. They had thousands of rounds of ammunition. After a while, they begin to fire, and all the audience sees is the guns firing and firing, the ammo depleting, the screams of dying aliens heard far away, but getting slowly closer. Finally the guns stop firing, either almost or completely out of ammunition. We never see the aliens attacking, but we know they were there. The first time I saw this scene, I had a whole new appreciation for the movie. Frankly, once the film gets past these parts, it turns into a fairly standard (and predictable) action film, and loses most of its real scare-factor. To me, at least the way I watched it, _Aliens_ proves the point that true horror lies in what you can’t see. The film spends several scenes establishing tension and terror through what the Marines (and so, us) can’t get a good visual grasp on. _Aliens_ is both types of film… the early parts show very little, and are absoutely terrifying. The latter half of the film shows the monster, and by then we’re more comfortable with it. It’s some good action, but it’s not really scary anymore. Now, the whole _Alien_ series works so well partially because of some really good monster design and implementation (thank you, Mr. Giger). However, the fact remains that once you see the monster you instantly get to put away your imagination, and focus on what you see. As others have said, the imagination has the potential to be far more horrible than whatever’s on the screen (or on the page). By the way, I feel pretty much the same way about _Jurassic Park_ that **Little Plastic Ninja** does. It’s not a horror film, but the best scary parts in it are when you can’t see what was going on. The scene with the disappearing lamb is a great example. And _Pitch Black_ is a lot like _Aliens_… very scary in the beginning (when you see very little), but by the end I just wasn’t scared anymore. Finally, I’ll tackle your question about classic horror films. > [@](#): > > **I see nobody has really answered my question about the classic horror movies that showed plenty of monster and were still considered extremely scary when they were released. Have audiences just become so jaded since then that nothing today can possibly be as scary as what we imagine? Or were audiences back then just so lacking in imagination that anything slightly strange or eerie would cause them to be afraid?** You have to ask yourself, here, just what did they have to compare it to? The horror-movie genre was still new to them, and most horror-film directors were not interested inbeing subtle. The idea of scaring people on purpose was so new, that most directors just went straight for the jugular. Sure, those movies seemed scary at the time. But frankly, compared to modern horror movies like _Session 9_ or _The Ring_ or even _The Blair Witch Project_, the old Hammer films really aren’t frightening at all. To me, it’s like comparing apples and oranges, but back when those old classics were made, they didn’t have that comparison to make. All they had were apples, the oranges (for the most part) came later. Sure, the apples were scary… but aren’t the oranges scarier, when you compare the two now? One classic that _did_ use the “less is more” principle to great advantage: the original version of _The Haunting_, in which you never really see what it is that haunts Hill House, is one of the best horror movies ever. It is effective and minimal and I don’t think anyone would ever argue that it would be more effective to show the monster in it. In fact, when someone tried to do just that (in the recent remake of the film with Liam Neeson), it was a total failure… a spectacular failure, but a failure nonetheless. It became completely un-frightening. I can’t think off a better illustration of why this principle works. The monsters in the remake were not badly-designed or cheap… they just weren’t as scary as the monsters we couldn’t see in the first one. In the end, it’s all about the anticipation. That’s where terror really lies. As Alfred Hitchcock said: “ **There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it.** ” ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/67 "2003-06-30T15:56:01Z")
**kingpengvin** : I understand (and agree with) your point about overexposure leading to ennui. That’s why I repeatedly said that the classic monster films of the 30s were considered terrifying _when they were first released_. Personally, I don’t know of many scary films that remain scary after repeated viewings. Even the ones that get their scares solely from suspense and tension suffer because after watching the movie once you know what is going to happen. For me, the one shining counter-example of this would be _The Exorcist_. I know that some people find it laughable, but I still can’t watch it and get a good night’s sleep afterwards. As for _Pitch Black_, it may have been another in a long line of “Alien” clones, but to me it was the first one that was actually _successful_ in scaring me as much as the original. Actually, the scene I described above from _Pitch Black_ was very reminiscent of one of my favorite scenes from _Aliens_, the one where: The motion detectors indicate that the aliens are getting closer and closer to the sealed room, and then indicate that the aliens are actually _in_ the room. Everyone is panicking because the aliens can’t be seen, and then one of the characters gets on a chair and sticks his head through a ceiling tile. He then sees a horde of aliens slithering through the ceiling crawlspace toward him. With both scenes, the buildup of suspense is obviously crucial, and I don’t mean to imply that a scary-looking monster is, by itself, enough to make a movie scary. Yes, there needs to be suspense, there needs to be tension, there should definitely be scenes that tease the audience with glimpses of the monster instead of showing it completely. Finally showing the monster can then provide an emotional consummation to the terror and suspense _if the monster is done well_. Sorry you didn’t find _Pitch Black_ to be scary, though… Barry ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/68 "2003-06-30T16:07:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by godzillatemple \* > **Finally showing the monster can then provide an emotional consummation to the terror and suspense _if the monster is done well_** Well, yes, you’re sort of proving the point here. Showing the creature in those scenes is an important part of the resolution of the scene. However, you should recognize that showing the creatures, in both the _Pitch Black_ and _Aliens_ scenes, is the _release_ of the tension the scene has built. Without the buildup, it wouldn’t be very scary at all. Shocking for a moment, perhaps, but not especially terrifying. ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/69 "2003-06-30T16:59:32Z")
**Avalonian** : Hmmmm… It seems I was busily composing my reponse to **kingpengvin** while you were posting your message that basically addressed all the points I was making. Dang, I _hate_ it when that happens! 😉 A couple of additional points: 1. I still think that “consummation” is a better term than “release.” Release implies that ther terror is dissipated and, to me, this is _exactly_ what happens when the monster is not eventually revealed (or when it is revealed to be a guy in a shoddy rubber monster suit). Suspense and tension are _released_ in scenes where, for example, the blip on the motion detector turns out to be the cat. They are _consummated_, on the other hand, when the blips turn out to be monsters crawling in the air ducts (no spoiler box this time, since you already mentioned it). The difference, in my opinion, is that one scene sticks with you and make you afraid of the dark, whereas the latter scene just ends up making you sigh with relief and/or chuckle. 2. In general, as I alluded above, a truly _scary_ movie is one which stays with you afterwards. Suspense and tension are great mood builders but, by themselves, don’t lead to any lasting scares. It’s only when the suspense and tension actually build to something visible that is, in and of itself, scary that the terror lingers. At least, this is how it has always been with me. There are, of course, counter-examples. The original _Cat People_ is certainly a movie that succeeded in being scary without showing more than shadows. In my opinion, though, this is the exception to the general rule. Horror, like comedy, is of course subjective, and what scares one person won’t scare another. I realize that. I still think, though, that the whole “what you don’t see scares you more than what you do see” idea was the result of filmmakers being unable to come up with effectively scary monsters. I guess I’ve just seen too many movies that rely _exclusively_ on shadows and innuendos to provide the scares that I’ve gotten a bit jaded myself. Regardless of how much tension and suspense I felt during the movie, if I don’t leave the theater with an image of a terrifying _whatsit_ seared into my brain I just don’t consider it to be a scary movie. Suspenseful, sure – but not scary. Suspense gets my adrenaline pumping during the movie, but it doesn’t last. True scares, however, keep me from sleeping at night. Excellent discussion all around, BTW. Thanks! Barry ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/70 "2003-06-30T18:34:29Z")
I agree, this is an excellent discussion. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by godzillatemple \* > **I’d still like to know whether Cervaise (or anybody else who accepts the “less is more” theory of scary movies) thought that the monsters depicted in _Pitch Black_ and _Jurassic Park_ were scary, in spite of the fact that they were fully shown.** I think you have a pretty good point here. Now, the monsters in _Pitch Black_ didn’t really scare me, because as others have pointed out it’s such an obvious _Alien_ ripoff; I was so distracted by the outlandish design of the creatures (hey! instead of a _long_ head, we’ll have a _wide_ head!), and preoccupied by trying to figure out the food chain on the planet, that I couldn’t let myself get carried away. But on the other hand, I _did_ think the T-rex attack, and later on the raptors in the kitchen, were pretty scary. > [@](#): > > **I still think that “consummation” is a better term than "release."** I’ll buy this, to some degree. Notice in _Jurassic Park_ that none of the really scary beasties is shown right away. The thing with the disappearing goat has already been noted; remember also that the velociraptors were introduced as rustling bushes around a haplessly lowered cow. In both cases, we see only their effect at first, so their attack later can be even more frightening. Spielberg knows what he’s doing when it comes to audience manipulation. I think the dinosaurs are kind of a special case, though, because _we already know what they look like._ We’ve all had the picture books, or visited the natural history museum, or whatever. As a creature, it isn’t a surprise. The only shock in _Jurassic Park_ is **how freakin’ _real_** the beasties looked. As compared to, say, Gwangi, which is obviously stop-action, and where you can see how the effects are interacting with the live-action plate, your mind has less of an imaginative leap to make. When you see comparatively “primitive” effects, there’s a moment where you must consciously let your skepticism go (the old “suspension of disbelief”) and accept the film’s reality. The original _King Kong_ was on TCM over the weekend, and it’s hard to get more primitive than that. (Well, not really. It was followed with a 1919 silent short called _The Ghost of Slumber Mountain._ But you get the point.) Audiences for the original _Kong_ were, compared to us, fairly unsophisticated; the big ape didn’t look “real,” exactly, but it’s the _story_ that puts it over the top. Even so — and here I go contradicting myself (but the reason will become clear in a moment) — I’ll mention another scene for comparison, one that scared the crap out of me when I was eleven: Perseus in the Medusa’s chamber in _Clash of the Titans._ Old-school stop-action special effects, yeah, and a monster you get to see all of. In the scene, the tension is not released (or “consummated”) by the appearance of the monster, it’s escalated, because it’s so freaky. Most people don’t know this, but Ray Harryhausen basically re-invented the way the Medusa looked with that scene. Up to that point, owing to Greek tradition, the Medusa was usually portrayed as a woman with snakes in her hair. Harryhausen took that as a starting point and completely reworked the creature; his design, adding the scaly face and serpent body, has been so influential that it’s what most of us think of when we think of the monster in other contexts. My point here is that, in this case, a totally new monster _can_ be scary on the reveal, under certain conditions. And hey, as long as I’m contradicting my thesis, I’ll give you another one: the Gentlemen in “Hush,” the fourth-season episode of _Buffy the Vampire Slayer._ Dunno if you’ve seen it, but these are the guys who rendered the town of Sunnydale mute because they were vulnerable to a human scream; the silence meant they could prey at will. Every time these guys show up, they’re truly frightening ([thumbnail](http://www.buffyguide.com/gallery.php3?img=images/epsp/166dd87183/episodes/hush/images/hush24.jpg)), but (and here’s where I come back to my original point) it’s not about what they look like, it’s _how they behave._ Design-wise, they’re pretty good, but what makes them really scary is the silence, and the way they glide effortlessly along without touching the ground. Maybe that’s part of why, for me, the beasties in _Pitch Black_ weren’t all that scary: they didn’t really do anything new. _Alien_ pioneered the creature that didn’t growl and snarl; it had a vocabulary of hisses and squeals we hadn’t heard before. Once that’s done, it’s done. The creatures in _Pitch Black_ just skulk around and kill. Seeeen it. Somebody else mentioned _28 Days Later_, which riffs on zombie conventions, except that these guys sprint rather than shuffle, and the infection takes hold with alarming rapidity; the movie gets a lot of mileage out of these simple differences. It does, however, get old after a while: All they do is run at you and kill you. Again — seeen it. Compare, for example, that flesh-peeling demon from _Buffy_ in season seven. Design-wise, nothing special; he looks like a supporting character in _Legend._ But his actual _behavior_ is deeply disturbing: he paralyzes his victims and slowly peels off strips of their skin to eat while they lie helpless and terrified. Or look at the Thing in John Carpenter’s movie of the same name: Every time it appears, you get a pretty good look at it, except that each time you don’t know where it’s coming from or what it’s going to look like in this incarnation. The bit where the guy with the defibrillator gets his wrists chomped, for instance, counts as one of my top-ten horror moments of all time. The point of all of this is that horror, in my opinion, really works is when the source of the terror cannot be entirely comprehended. In some movies, that means you don’t show the monster. In other movies, by contrast, while you may see the monster, you can’t quite wrap your head around it. In _The Thing_, you sort of know what’s going on in the abstract, but you don’t know what the monster “really” looks like or how it’s going about its business. It’s unknown, and hence it’s terrifying. Or look at _The Wicker Man_, a horror movie that doesn’t even have a “monster” in the conventional sense. For the first hour of the movie, you’re thinking, okay, this is kind of strange, but why the heck does this movie have the reputation it does? And then the police inspector steps over the top of the hill, and everything falls into place, and your brain explodes. You know, in a sense of “the story on paper,” what is going on, but trying to actually understand it, to make sense of it so it can be placed in context of what you know as the real world, is impossible. This is horror in the true sense of the word: not “gotcha!” shocks, the slasher surprises that are mislabeled as and pass for horror these days. It’s horror in that it freaks you out and shoves a splinter of unresolvable uncertainty into the comfortable skin of your reality. So perhaps “showing” the monster is the wrong terminology. It might be better to say “explaining” the monster. Part of what’s wrong with modern horror, in my opinion, is that there isn’t much to the average monster beyond the threat to life and limb. It doesn’t really matter what the monster looks like if all it’s doing is lurking in the shadows and killing people if they get too close. But if the monster is doing _something else_ — gestating in the chest before bursting free (_Alien_), or taking control of ordinary people and making them do nasty things (as in the Japanese horror movie _Cure_, which works really well up until a lame ending), or causing so much sheer fright to somebody that they die without being touched (as in _The Ring_), or otherwise threatening not just our bodies and blood but our actual relationship with the world in a manner that we can’t rationally grasp, _then_ that can be scary. I know this is long and convoluted. Does it make sense? ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/71 "2003-06-30T18:53:59Z")
Excellent post, **Cervaise**! I was wondering why you hadn’t responded to my question earlier. Now I know it was because you were busy composing that little masterpiece. As an aside, I hadn’t read Steven King’s “Danse Macabre” when I started this thread (still haven’t, as a matter of fact). I guess what I really object to is the concept (that he apparently espouses therein) that an audience will never be satisfied with the monster that is revealed since it can’t possibly be as scary as what the audience can imagine. I agree that it’s important to not show a monster too much, and that repeated viewing can dull the terror. I agree that suspense and tension can (and should) effectively be used to increase the fright that is felt once the monster is revealed. But I disagree that a good filmmaker is incapable of showing me a monster that is every bit as terrifying (if not more so) than anything I could have imagined on my own. As I mentioned earlier, most of my childhood nightmares were about specific monsters I had seen and not figments of my own imagination. Of course, maybe that just means I don’t have a vivid enough imagination. I can certainly imagine the title critter of “Alien” waiting for me around a darkened corner – and imagine it so clearly that I become convinced – but I don’t think I could ever imagine anything more frightening than that critter on my own. Of course, I think that’s probably a good thing, all things considered. Regards, Barry ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/72 "2003-06-30T19:14:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by godzillatemple \* > **I still think that “consummation” is a better term than “release.” Release implies that ther terror is dissipated and, to me, this is _exactly_ what happens when the monster is not eventually revealed (or when it is revealed to be a guy in a shoddy rubber monster suit). Suspense and tension are _released_ in scenes where, for example, the blip on the motion detector turns out to be the cat. They are _consummated_, on the other hand, when the blips turn out to be monsters crawling in the air ducts (no spoiler box this time, since you already mentioned it). The difference, in my opinion, is that one scene sticks with you and make you afraid of the dark, whereas the latter scene just ends up making you sigh with relief and/or chuckle.** Like **Cervaise** , I can buy this distinction up to a point. I see the difference you’re pointing out and agree with it. However, for me, both types of resolution of suspense are a release, though one more effective than the other. Either way, the point when you find out that the noise downstairs was just the cat or was a werewolf eating the cat is a release of all the suspense that’s been building up to that point. To me, the _most_ effective films are the ones that keep the suspense going without going for the final reveal of the source of it. These sorts of movies are very rare indeed. _The Haunting_ is one. _Session 9_ is another (see that if you haven’t… it’s incrredibly scary). _Signs_ could have been one (and a good one), but sort of botched it at the end. An interesting point about _Signs_… through most of it, it defies many of the standard horror-film conventions. For instance, when Graham (Joaquim Phoenix) throws a branch into the cornfield as he passes by, we expect _some_ sort of reaction. Either birds fly out or a dog runs out or some mysterious rustling… _something_. And yet, nothing happens… just the wind, gently rustling the cornstalks. In a way, that was the scariest possible option, because it really kept you guessing. That movie had so much potential… dammit. Anyway, I do see what you’re saying about “release” vs. “consummation” – and I agree with the distinction, except to say that because both provide a resolution to the tension that has (hopefully) been building up until that point, they are both a release of a sort. The “consummation” part is, of course, more effective, if it’s handled skillfully. If handled poorly (as it was in _Signs_), then it just ends up being a disappointment. However, neither are necessary to create a scene that “sticks with you.” For instance, in King’s book _Gerald’s Game_, the part that sticks with me the most is when the main character, who has been chained to a bed, thinks she sees someone in a dark corner of the room. She can see tiny details suggesting a human-like form, watching her. We don’t find out until much later in the story whether there was anything in the room or not, but that particular image stuck with me so much that I didn’t want to turn out all the lights the night. It still bothers me now. So, a good “consummation” can definitely stick with you. The Aliens in the crawlspace example is a good one, that image definitely adheres to the brain most unpleasantly. However, a film (or a book or even a radio show) that creates suspense skillfully can also stay with you long after you’re done with it. I can think of only a few examples that do this really well (most have already been discussed), but when they do it, it works far better. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/73 "2003-06-30T19:20:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by godzillatemple \* > **As an aside, I hadn’t read Steven King’s “Danse Macabre” when I started this thread (still haven’t, as a matter of fact). I guess what I really object to is the concept (that he apparently espouses therein) that an audience will never be satisfied with the monster that is revealed since it can’t possibly be as scary as what the audience can imagine.** To be fair, I think King’s opinion here, while valuable, is partly rooted in his own limited imagination. What? you say. The most popular and successful horror author of all time has a limited imagination? I say yes. As I’ve explained in other threads (I think it’s the _Shining_ thread I linked above), King’s monsters are all basically the same: they’re _external._ In other words, he gives us ordinary people whose world is invaded by _something else_ they must combat. _Tommyknockers_ = alien invaders. _Christine_ = demon-haunted car. _It_ = killer clown. _Cujo_ = rabid dog. And so on. And in all of these cases, the monster’s objective is simple: It wants to frighten and kill us. Period. (The exceptions are his psychological books, like _Misery_ and _Gerald’s Game._) Contrast this with other well-known horror creators — for example, David Cronenberg, who gives us _horror from within._ In his stories, usually, the creature is us. It’s no accident that the only King book adapted by Cronenberg is one where the two approaches overlap: _The Dead Zone._ So given that King’s preoccupation with horror revolves around monsters who come from somewhere else, scare the hell out of us, and then kill us, it’s no surprise that he’s acutely aware of the limitations of their presentation. If the only difference between a giant crab creature and an oozing slime monster is their appearance, then at root they’re scary in pretty much the same way, right? And therefore he’d be correct in wanting to limit the physical representation of the beastie, because that’s the only way to maintain the mystery, the quality of the unknown, that gives rise to fear. I think he’s on to something, obviously, but there’s more to it than that. So, coming full circle, how about this for a guideline: If the monster’s only threat is that it will kill you, in most cases it’s best not to show too much of it. If your monster represents a completely different kind of threat, it’s generally safe to show it, because its appearance isn’t what’s scary about it. ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/74 "2003-06-30T20:23:05Z")
> [@](#): > > However, for me, both types of resolution of suspense are a release, though one more effective than the other. Either way, the point when you find out that the noise downstairs was just the cat or was a werewolf eating the cat is a release of all the suspense that’s been building up to that point. To me, the most effective films are the ones that keep the suspense going without going for the final reveal of the source of it. Well, I guess by “consummation” I am more referring to the situation that **Cervaise** described, wherein the appearance of the monster actually continues the terror by escalating it. Again, I don’t see this as any sort of release if done correctly. And yes, I agree that _Signs_ was a movie with a lot of scary moments but that, in the end, didn’t turn out to be a scary movie due to the disappointing ending (insofar as the way the alien was potrayed). > [@](#): > > So, coming full circle, how about this for a guideline: If the monster’s only threat is that it will kill you, in most cases it’s best not to show too much of it. If your monster represents a completely different kind of threat, it’s generally safe to show it, because its appearance isn’t what’s scary about it. Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by “show too much.” If you mean that the monster shouldn’t be shown to early so as to let the suspense build, I agree. If you mean the monster shouldn’t be shown too often so as to not let the audience get too used to it, I agree. If, however, you mean the monster shouldn’t be shown fully at any time, then I disagree (assuming the monster is done well). As for Steven King, I’m a big fan of his larger works (The Stand, Insomnia, etc.) and his short stories, but I don’t find him to be particularly scary either. I like his large works because he does an excellent job of character development and making you care about the people, and I like his short stories because he has a knack for coming up with a good twist ending. Not all that scary, though. Barry ---
**Author:** ![Ferris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ferris/32/11573_2.png) [@Ferris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferris)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/75 "2003-06-30T23:40:57Z")
> [@](#): > > essentially it demonstrated that the rules I thought the film was following were being ignored, and I could have no idea what would happen next. Watching the film was genuinely scary, a journey into a dark, strange fantasy. Yeah, I have to agree with **Mr Tambo**. I was freaked out by _Lost Highway_ in exactly the same way. If you ‘buy in’ to his fantasy then it’s pretty terrifying. If you don’t, then I guess you might end up feeling bored or just amused. I agree with a lot of the points here. There’s also the point that it’s possible to distinguish between ‘BOO!’ moments, which can cause you to leap out of your seat (e.g Alien, Fatal Attraction), and those kind of creepy, unsettling feelings that you get all the way through Lost Highway. Mind you, David Lynch just weirds me out with most of the stuff he’s done. I think that films like _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_ and _The Thing_ can end up being scarier overall because they prey on the audience’s paranoia; they can’t tell who’s good and who’s bad (i.e they can’t see the monster). Based on my own experiences, I’d say that ‘not seeing the monster’ is scarier in most situations, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Elvis\_Rojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@El\_Elvis\_Rojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Elvis_Rojo)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/76 "2003-07-01T16:08:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by godzillatemple \* > **[As an aside, I don’t really consider _Phantom of the Opera_ to be a monster movie, although it is frequently included in that genre. The title character is, after all, just a man (albeit one who has been horribly scarred and driven insane as a result). That’s just me, though.** What do you feel about Jason? Or Mike Meyers? Or Hannibal Lecter? Or Leather Face? Just because they’re not supernatural (well, in their original form in some instances) doesn’t make them any less of a monster. Also, I dissagree with you that the actions of the monster are inconsiquential to the monster’s fear factor. If you see a werewolf, and it looks firocious, but doesn’t do anything/kill anyone, where’s the fear? What’s to be afraid of? It’s scary looking, yeah, but so is the pittbull living next to my ex-girlfriend, and it’s friendly as hell. What the creature is capable of doing is scary, but what it actually DOES can be moreso. And when left up to the viewer, what it does is more terrifying to the mind’s eye than to the camera’s, and that hightens the creature’s fear factor. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by godzillatemple \* > **Well, in the case you describe the fear is of something known, that has been seen before, and that can be visualized (wolves, even if they are extra-large), not some amorphous “something” that is scarier than an actual wolf. The fear is based on a known threat and the possibility that this known threat might possibly be out there in the dark ready to jump out and grab you. The only “unknown” is whether the wolves are there, not what they look like.** You didn’t quote his entire post. I belive it ended with: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Vlad Dracul \* > \*\*Or something worse than wolves, something unknown… that only comes out when it’s dark. \*\* **Vlad** pointed out that it is the unknown that’s more terrifying. It could be wolves…but what if it’s not? You don’t know it’s wolves, but you’re _hoping_ it’s wolves. Why? Because then you know what it is, and that’s less frightening. You can put a face on it, you can name it, you know what it looks like and you know what it can do, and although that’s scary as hell, you can at least define it. As has been mentioned, **The Blair Witch Project** was great for this. When I left the theater, I was scared as hell. But scared of WHAT? I had no idea. **The Blob** made me terrified of extraterestrial giant ameobas. **Dracula** left me looking for vampires. **The Howling** had me scanning the woods for werewolves. But what was I looking for after **Blair Witch**? Was I looking for a cooked old hag, was I looking for a ghost, was I looking for a small group of saddists? Who the fuck knew? All I know is I was scared of something, and it was out there. Another great example that no one’s brought up is **The Evil Dead**. Sure, it’s budget sucked and visual effects weren’t that great, but that movie was genuinely terrifying. And you never saw the monster! You saw it’s perspective, passing through the trees, breaking down doors, and invading people, but that’s it. When they finally do show it in **ED 2** , it’s pretty laughable. I mean, the audience had been dealing with this faceless spirit that apparently can be seen, but they never know what it looks like. They just know it’s terrifying and horrible. When it’s actually shown, it looks ridiculous. That’s why I’m glad they didn’t bother showing it in **Army of Darkness** , because it allows the viewer to forget that last shot of ED 2 and get back into the “It’s something terrible that’s coming to get you” mood. So, again, whereas it is important to see something of the moster to give you an idea of what it is you should be terrified of, less is more. ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/77 "2003-07-01T16:57:30Z")
> [@](#): > > What do you feel about Jason? Or Mike Meyers? Or Hannibal Lecter? Or Leather Face? Just because they’re not supernatural (well, in their original form in some instances) doesn’t make them any less of a monster. > > Also, I dissagree with you that the actions of the monster are inconsiquential to the monster’s fear factor. If you see a werewolf, and it looks firocious, but doesn’t do anything/kill anyone, where’s the fear? What’s to be afraid of? It’s scary looking, yeah, but so is the pittbull living next to my ex-girlfriend, and it’s friendly as hell. What the creature is capable of doing is scary, but what it actually DOES can be moreso. And when left up to the viewer, what it does is more terrifying to the mind’s eye than to the camera’s, and that hightens the creature’s fear factor. I definitely don’t consider _Silence of the Lambs_ to be a monster movie, but Mike Meyers (from_Halloween_) and Jason (from _Friday the 13th_) are both supernatural, unstoppable, killing machines who do, in my opinion, count as monsters. I think Leather Face was in _The Texas Chainsaw Massacre_, but I haven’t seen that film. I’m not sure what it really matters, though, to be honest. Somewhere along the line in this discussion the distinction between what a “monster” looks like and what it actually does got a bit blurred. My basic premise was that it’s possible to show a monster who _looks_ every bit as frightening (if not more so) than what the audience can imagine. Yes, you don’t have to show the killing on screen for the monster to be scary. And yes, a monster can be scary even if not shown in detail. But to say that a monster, if shown, can never be as scary as what the audience can imagine on their own is, in my opinion, a cop-out from filmmakers who simply can’t make a scary monster. I have a feeling I’m repeating myself here… As for **Vlad** ’s quote about the noise outside the campfire possibly being wolves “or something worse than wolves,” I don’t think he can really say what was going through the minds of prehistoric men. He thinks that they would imagine all sorts of hideous beasties far scarier than anything they had actually seen before. I think, however, that they would likely think of real beasties they had actually seen before, since those are plenty scary enough. Once you’ve seen a wolf attack a friend and rip him to pieces, I don’t think you need to imagine one twice as big with red eyes and tentacles in order to be scared of things that go grwol in the night. I can, of course, only base this on my own experience – my nightmares and fretful imaginings tend to be based on things I have actually seen (whether in real life or portrayed on screen). As I said before, if I’m on a camping trip and hear a twig snap in the darkness outside my tent, my normal thought is that it is a small animal or perhaps somebody going to the bathroom. Unless, of course, I just watched a werewolf movie or heard a ghost story, in which case I become convinced that the noise must be whatever monster I recently saw or heard described. I don’t have amorphous fears of something I’ve never seen before or heard described in detail, and I really have trouble accepting that I am the only one. I note that you admit to being scared by movies such as _The Blob_, _The Howling_ and _Dracula_, each of which had a monster that was shown in detail. The fact that you were _also_ scared by a movie that _didn’t_ show the monster doesn’t mean that you are unable to be scared by a monster that _is_ shown. [As an aside, _Blair Witch Project_ didn’t scare me very much, but that’s probably because I had heard how it ended before seeing it and there wasn’t as much suspense as a result. Once you remove the suspense, and without a scary-looking monster, there wasn’t any reason for me to feel scared.] You were scared by _Evil Dead_? I always thought of it as a horror-comedy, myself. Barry ---
**Author:** ![El\_Elvis\_Rojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@El\_Elvis\_Rojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Elvis_Rojo)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/78 "2003-07-01T17:28:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by godzillatemple \* > \*\*The fact that you were _also_ scared by a movie that _didn’t_ show the monster doesn’t mean that you are unable to be scared by a monster that _is_ shown. > > You were scared by _Evil Dead_? I always thought of it as a horror-comedy, myself. \*\* I never said I wasn’t scared of a monster that is shown, I said it’s more terrifying when you don’t know what it is. Werewolves are pretty terrifying monsters, but once you recognize it’s a werewolf, you’ve got it classified and you start thinking “Okay, where can I find some silver?” You know what it is, you know what it can do, and you know how to kill it, so you get a little bit (okay, often times microscopic) amount of hope and confidence. When you have no idea what it is, you have no idea how to protect yourself, and that’s truly terrifying. As for **Evil Dead** , I really don’t find anything about it funny (the first one, mind you). Yes, the visual effects are piss poor compared to todays standards, and the acting is rather sub par, but the plot, use of camera, sound, and mood of the film were absolutely terrifying. The scenes where you don’t see any monsters, but Ash watching the shadows and listening to the noises are some of the most unsettling scenes in a horror movie. And again, it’s what you don’t see in those scenes that make it so tense. (why everyone finds that movie so funny, I don’t know). ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/79 "2003-07-01T17:46:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by El Elvis Rojo \* > **I never said I wasn’t scared of a monster that is shown, I said it’s more terrifying when you don’t know what it is.** Ah, so you were _more_ scared by _Blair Witch Project_ than by those other films you mentioned. Sorry, I didn’t catch that the first time around. I thought you were offering examples of various movies that scared you equally, and were using the fact that one of those movies didn’t show the monster to prove that what you can’t see is somehow scarier. My bad. > [@](#): > > **Werewolves are pretty terrifying monsters, but once you recognize it’s a werewolf, you’ve got it classified and you start thinking “Okay, where can I find some silver?” You know what it is, you know what it can do, and you know how to kill it, so you get a little bit (okay, often times microscopic) amount of hope and confidence. When you have no idea what it is, you have no idea how to protect yourself, and that’s truly terrifying.** Hey – speak for yourself. Once _I_ recognize a werewolf I go fleeing in terror screaming, “AHHHHH – WEREWOLF!!!” I’m afraid I’m not at my analytical best at times like these, to be honest. > [@](#): > > **As for Evil Dead, I really don’t find anything about it funny (the first one, mind you).** Really? I felt the whole movie was tongue-in-cheek, with lots of over-the-top gore and scenery chewing. Didn’t scare me a bit, but I quite enjoyed it nonetheless. Ah well, to each his own. We’ve already established that I’m apparently the only one who found _Pitch Black_ scary and not just a cheap _Aliens_ rip-off. Anyway, to sum up, it appears that there are definitely people who have imaginations so vivid that they really can think up things that are much scarier than anything a fimmaker could possibly show. For these people, it’s better to only hint at the true nature of the monster and let their imaginations do the rest. I submit, however, that these people are not in the majority (and may even be in the extreme minority). I have no way of backing up this belief, but I really do think that most people are more scared by concrete things they have either seen or heard described, and for these people it’s very possible for a filmmaker to actually show a monster that scares the pants of them. I’m definitely in the latter camp, you are apparently in the former. To be honest, though, I’m extremely glad I do not possess such an imagination, as I don’t think I would _ever_ go to sleep if I did. It’s bad enough being scared by real life and things I’ve seen depicted in films and books without being even _more_terrified by things that I dream up all by myself. Barry ---
**Author:** ![El\_Elvis\_Rojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@El\_Elvis\_Rojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Elvis_Rojo)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672/80 "2003-07-02T13:00:06Z")
Here’s a question for you then…how involved do you get in the movies you watch? What I mean is, movies, like a good story, depend on being able to get you to feel as though you’re part of the action. Well, maybe not so much, but to at least make it so you can feel a connection with the characters in the film and hopefully experience a bit of what they feel (in the case of horror movies, that’s terror). Are you always able to keep yourself distanced and annalytical, or do you allow yourself to get wrapped up in what’s going on? For that, I present this scenario: A character hears their friend scream, so they walk out into the woods and see their friend being mauled by a werewolf. The werewolf turns on them, they run into the house, shut and lock the door, and stand back watching as the thing pounds on the door trying to get in. Pretty scary, no? Now, imagine if a character hears their friend scream, and walks out into the woods to find them. This time, they come across their friend’s mutilated body, hear a growl, look up to see what appear to be glowing eyes in the trees but nothing more, then hear the thing coming towards them. They run, get inside, shut the door, and watch as whatever it is on the outside beats on the door trying to get in. To me (and I would think a majority vs. your minority) would find the later scenario MUCH more terrifying to be in, and thus, much more terrifying to watch. Special effects can make some pretty impressive and terrifying monsters, but they’re nothing as terrifying as the imagination. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-what-you-cant-see-really-more-scary/184672.md?page=5)