Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I know horror is not science fiction, but I think if they made things more feesible, it'd make the horror genre better overall, like Excorist of Emily Rose, (even though it was way more graphic then the real story) it was still feesible, and with the questioning of it's reality but failure to provide solid evidence on scientific basis, it hit really close to home on the horrors we face everyday. Albeit, nothing "scary" about it, but really, who watches horror movies to get scared?

For instance take Freedy vs Jason, (which I know is a bad example but work with me..) Hypnocil is a drug used by the hospital to supress dreams in the movie. However, the only way to supress dreams is to block the REM receptors during sleep. If the kids in the institute had really had their REM receptors blocked they would have gone completely beserk and died within a matter of months.

I dunno', maybe I'm just wierd..

should have brought that up in 1987 when Nancy was taking Hypnocil to prevent herself from dreaming and asks that the kids in the ward be prescribed it........................

ps. this is in no way an example of anything pertaining to any physical laws of our universe.

Stopping REM sleep wouldn't stop you from dreaming; people dream durring non-REM sleep as well, just not as vividly. If the movie says otherwise (I only watched about half of it, on the SCiFi Channel), then it's wrong. But when you're dealing with an undead serial killer who kills people by murdering them in their dreams, I think it's a little late to be worrying about whether the movie's realistic or not.

trying to get realism out of an horror is a waste of time. they aint meant to be realistic