Nothing Is Scarier/Headscratchers

• Why aren't modern horror (or older, I don't know) films using this trope more often? Isn't this trope's effect, in terms of the cost and effectiveness, Awesome Yet Practical?
  • It might be thanks to modern audiences and that some people don't like there to be a lull. This trope is best for a psychological type of horror whereas those aren't particularly mainstream.
  • Or, as opposed to what people might believe, it is possible that modern audience don't actually want to be scared. They like the idea of being scared, and the feeling they can go through it, which is why they enjoy flicks like Freddy Vs. Jason. But actually scary movies that gnaw at their very psyche? Nah.
    • Or, even further, most people don't find this scary. Despite my hyperactive imagination, if nothing is shown, I will assume there is nothing, until, something happens.
      • To add to this: There needs to be weight to the nothing. You can't have dread if there is nothing to dread. The best horror films (Psycho, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Alien) are not just made of Nothing Is Scarier, but instead use it between much more visual sequences. This is one of my personal pet peeves; people are so used to this being a positive trope that they forget why it works. For example, the SCP Foundation often rejects articles that don't at least clearly define how to contain the object and give some idea of how the object works or its effects. Why? Because a bunch of [DATA EXPUNGED] isn't scary unless there's an indication from the rest of the text that there is something scary behind it.
      • Exactly. Most people don't find this stuff scary because often it's boring, a waste of time, and they feel ripped off by there being no payoff or the payoff being badly executed. Merely having Nothing Is Scarier does not automatically make something scary, it requires effort.
  • A lot of movies/games want to show off their budget. A lot easier to show it off with in-your-face ABLOOGABLOOGABLOOGA.
  • I think modern horror films use this more than older movies, if anything. The Mothman Prophecies, The House of the Devil (which, admittedly, was an homage to 70s horror), etc. What's scary about it? The notion that something is waiting, or watching. It's up to the filmmaker to convey this sensation.
• Why is nothing so scary!? There is literally nothing to be afraid of. You can see that nothing is there. Paranoia Fuel?
  • Because you don't know what's there, and so your imagination comes up with the worst.
  • I don't know about you, but when an human notices their environment to be quiet, they become tense because absolute silent and nothingness is not natural. For example, when you are in a forest and if suddenly all the sounds of wild animals and such disappear, you are fucked.
  • It's not the nothing that's scary. It's the fact that there's something out there that you can't see or hear that's scary.
  • This troper assumed that it was scary because it was done poorly very easily, and the times it was done well are that much more nerve-racking because of it. It could also be that because so few attempt it (well), we still have something to like about it, whereas if it was used too much we would get bored and demand other horror tropes be used.
• Why are the examples so mixed up? The different types seem so clearly defined. For instance, Marble Hornets. There are only two instances of a classic example, whereas the series is infamous for Type 3 examples. Also, the chase scene in No Country for Old Men is a full example, but is the first thing on the classic example list. In the Type 3 examples, the Signs example is clearly a classic one. Under the Full examples, the painter Edward Hopper is described as a type 3, and I could go on with more.
  • There's a button at the top of the page that says "Edit." Get to work.