Even though the Big Bang can start off good, it could go at the wrong direction. Good films like Psycho and Silence of the Lambs did not have to explode in your face in the opening scenes.
Usually there are 3 typical opening scenes for a horror film.
Big Bang:
The idea is to explode something at the audience grabbing their attention from the start. Films like Jaws, Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream used this technique. Even though it could be viewed as a “plot introduction” to the story, but its not because the Big Bang omits the story information. This isn’t really a common method because the movie is likely to lose steam before the end of the story. But on the other hand a handful of good films were able to work out the Big Bang.
The Introduction:
The most common method with most horror movies, the idea is to introduce the character, characters and/or story plot in the opening scene. This is the most common because it’s easy to work with. This could range from good guys, bad guys or just the story itself. Typically speaking if you pick up any horror story 95% (Yea, I made that number up) your going to see an introduction to the story. If your having a hard time finding these films then check out the following: Silence of the Lambs, Halloween, Evil Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Black Christmas, Night of the Living Dead, and almost any Italian giallo thriller you run into.
The Illusion
This is not a common method and can be seen as an introduction, too. The Illusion simply gives the audience a false idea as what the story is or what the characters really are. Usually this uncommon method is used in many drama films that give the audience a story without a real plot till the end. Sometime The Illusion can be viewed as a story within another story. As a horror film it’s really hard to work in because the suspense of the film is really at the end and you’re really building up for the twist (or plot shift). Not impossible to do as such films like From Dusk to Dawn and Psycho were able to pull it off successfully.
Flaws are good, true.
Many mistakes are made when the filmmaker/writer makes a Complex Character flaw for their character that can become so over dramatic and unreal that nobody can humanly relate. Even though a complex character flaw can be good to watch as well as fun to make, it rarely works. Mel Gibson character in "Signs" is a good example of a complex character flaw. (Even though this formula worked well with the movie as a Popcorn Muncher the character does not seem real enough to give the film a longer lasting life.)
Simple character flaws are always good!
Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) in the original Halloween has a simple character flaws (see example). So she ends up watching all the kids (as her friends party around) to the point that puts her at risk. A very simple character flaw can make the character human because many viewers can relate. And you need the viewers to relate with the character for the film to become suspenseful.
Usually when making a character you should only come up with a handful of character flaws. Five the most and these character flaws should be key words. You don’t need to make a sentence or a paragraph about your characters personal flaws. Also a character flaw doesn’t mean it has to be bad or self-destructive, either. It is something that the character is going to do because that is part of their personality or nature.
Example of a good character flaw:
Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis):
Student
Follower
Risk Taker
Responsible
Reliable
(And this formula has been rehashed in many Slasher films.)
No!
This only works if the writer is building the story based on the characters own personal fears. Which is part of the character flaw.
Jake Scully (Craig Wasson) of Body Double is a struggling actor who keeps losing jobs because of his claustrophobia. In this story, director Brian DePalma pays homage to the Alfred Hitchc*ck movies Vertigo and Rear Window, by exploiting the characters personal fear to pull the suspense in the film.
This isn’t really a bad method and it can be fun for the writer. Its not required to make a good script, this is just part of the story.
(The combined use of “The Fear” and “No Escape” can be overwhelming and annoying.)
This is part of the story. And up to the writer. Even if your character can escape and doesn’t could make a good story.
The elements of a crappy movie!
This cheap thrill has been play out so much that the attempt is funny and pulls the audience away on what can be suspenseful in the future part of the story.
The only good story that comes in mind that used “Foreplay” successfully to its own advantage is April Fools Day. On the other hand April Fools Day was one of the best-underrated Slasher films in the later 80’s.
Not often true.
This is up to the writer of the story. Also, you don’t really need “the Monster” attacking its victims in the middle of the script to make it worthwhile. Films like Seven, The Ring and Texas Chainsaw Massacre (original) doesn’t have its killers attacking random victims in the middle of the story.
Unless your making a Scooby-Doo like film, investigation is not necessary. This all depends on the writer and if they think their character would investigate.
Usually, the character would investigate if they know something is out of order. Oddly, though many common horror films miss the opportunity to give the character life to investigate something that is not in order to keep the movie going. (How long do you think a typical Friday the Thirteenth movie would be if the friends think so-and-so is missing and we must investigate and/or call the police?)
So typically the investigation would be part of the showdown, or a cracker trail to a showdown.
Showdown, sometimes the hero facing the monster could be good enough.
Even though some films mix both personal fear battles and fighting the monster (Giving the monster the super advantage!) in stories like Village and Body Double, isn’t always necessary. But can be fun!
Some movies just make it simple and pit the character against the beast. Like Halloween and Friday the Thirteenth.
This is up to the writer and not really necessary. Unless you think you need to add some closure with the character flaw (or complex character flaw).
Evil Lurks (or the Monster Never dies) has been played out way-way too much! This is really up to the writer and I would like to caution those that are thinking of such endings. Don’t unless you really think it works with your story and you really, really think such an ending would not insult the audience.
There are a few good “Evil Lurk” endings as well as countless of bad one’s.
The best “Evil Lurks” ending in movies is The Beast, Black Christmas, Silent Rage, Evil Dead, Hellraiser, and Silence of the Lambs. (These endings are very true to the story that keeps you thinking afterwards. Not really hooking you in for a part 2 but giving a viewer an after thought. ‘What would happen next?’)
(Should I even talk about the bad ones?)
Even though Halloween kind of started the chain of “Evil Lurks” ending, its own ending isn’t really good. (I wont even start ranting about part 2 and part 4, etc…)
The real success of Friday the Thirteenth is not its “Evil Lurks” ending that kept people coming to see the next movie, its was successful because the movie did meet the requirements for the viewer as well as the producers willing to keep the movie project going. Its requirements for the viewer are teens getting sliced and diced and the Producers requirement is easy profit.