Likely to run from "Scream Queen" image.

This message has been deleted by an administrator

Yes. It's much better to have the career of, say, Katherine Heigl, who never did a single horror movie, yet probably isn't going to have much of a career after 40. Nobody MAKES actresses sign box sets at conventions and it's pretty common to be washed up at 40 if you're a Hollywood actress.

Here's an idea--the actresses that endure are the ones that have TALENT and not just looks. Whether actresses appear in horror movies (or do nudity or do nudity IN horror movies) is totally irrelevant. Take Elizabeth Olsen, who seems to be doing just fine despite her first major role being in a horror movie that involved nudity ("Martha Marcy May Marlene"). Those things aren't the kiss of death some make them out to be, not being TALENTED is.

Most "scream queens" never went anywhere because they simply weren't that talented to begin with, so they kept making horror movies. But being in a lot of horror movies didn't CAUSE them to be untalented. People confuse the cause and effect here.

Heigl pissed a lot of people off in the industry. She's so hard to deal with on set that
no one will even consider signing her. Not sure what these two actors have in common.

In regard to "looks" you are being naive. Plenty of actors get by on looks and the editing and cutting helps them look more legitimate than they are. Lets not forget the casting couch either.

I don't want Maika to be labeled a scream queen either. But she will probably not work with Adam Winguard or David Robert Mitchell again is because of the horror stigma i was talking about in the original post. That kind of bums me out. horror movies may not cause people to be untalented but try to tell that to award shows that refuse to honor anyone doing the genre.

Katherine Heigl was in 2001's Valentine, a slasher horror movie in the style of Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer.

Katherine H was in Bride of Chucky, in 1998.

For Grave Encounters... I'm Lance Preston.