From YouTube to the multiplex: How low-budget horror films are beating big-budget studio bets 53%

By Cerys Davies34%

6/20/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Hasty Generalization, and Negativity Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 33.2% saturation with 244 hits. Analysis detected 1,616 faulty-reasoning hits from 736 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.8% and a BS Rank of 53% (10,350 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.70% of the article peer group.

Two of the biggest box-office standouts of 2026 so far were not made by established studio directors or built on franchise IP. 
“Obsession” and “Backrooms”  horror films from internet-native directors in their 20s  have outperformed far more expensive studio releases. 
The breakout success of these films has ignited debate across Hollywood about what made these movies so popular, especially among Gen Z moviegoers who haven’t been flocking to cinemas in recent years. 
Here’s what to know: 
”Obsession” was directed by 26-year-old Curry Barker, who got his start on YouTube with sketch comedy and horror shorts. 
Released May 15 by Focus Features, the film was made for just $750,000 but opened to a staggering $17 million and has improved on its debut every weekend since. 
“Obsession” set an all-time horror record for the biggest fourth weekend for a film at the domestic box office, raking in $25.4 million. 
It now ranks as the year’s fifth most popular film, nearing $200 million domestically and roughly $295 million worldwide  ahead of Pixar’s “Hoppers” ($166 million) and Paramount’s “Scream 7” ($121 million), per Box Office Mojo. 
“Backrooms,” from 21-year-old Kane Parsons  known on YouTube as Kane Pixels  drew on an online fascination with liminal spaces, leading audiences through an endless run of nearly indistinguishable rooms. 
Released May 29 by A24 (known for such acclaimed films as “Moonlight” and Everything Everywhere All at Once”) on a reported $10-million budget, it opened to $81 million and crossed $100 million in under a week. 
Within two and a half weeks, it had outgrossed the entire theatrical runs of horror films “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2,” “Smile” and “Scream 7.” 
It sits as 2026’s eighth-highest-grossing film. 
The audiences are young. 
In recent weeks, nearly 90% of “Backrooms’” viewers were under 35, with more than half under 25. 
Over “Obsession’s” first few weekends, 75% of the audience was 17 to 34, which is significant at a time when major studios have struggled to consistently get younger viewers to trek to the multiplex. 
Audiences have clearly latched onto the stories, said Jason Blum of Blumhouse–Atomic Monster, who worked on both films. 
“There’s been an audience kind of waiting to get back to the movie theaters, and we in Hollywood really have not landed on what would get them back,” he told The Times in an interview this week. 
Blum, who upended horror genre with the “Paranormal Activity” franchise, ties the success of “Backrooms” and “Obsession” to a connection to the directors’ origins. 
Because the films were made by creators who speak to younger viewers daily on YouTube, he said, that generation “feels like they’re being spoken to.” 
David Gross, an analyst at FranchiseRe, framed it as a new pipeline of talent and material. 
Creators can build large followings very inexpensively, he said, and their stories arrive further developed  which expedites the development and discovery process. 
He called internet-based storytelling “another additive source for material for movies.” 
Blum added that the films’ success could make studios more willing to bet on undiscovered directors who “might not have been considered” before. 
Rosie Ramirez, chief marketing officer at Galaxy Theatres, said a young first-wave audience tends to generate buzz. 
More than a month after “Obsession” was released, she said, the Nevada chain’s four California locations are only now seeing a second wave of moviegoers curious about the hype. 
Notably, the rise of these two films has unfolded in the shadow of major releases like Disney’s “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” and Mattel’s “Masters of the Universe,” both of which returned underwhelming numbers in their respective opening weekends. 
Whether this marks a lasting shift or a fluke is unclear. 
May crossed $1 billion in box office  with “Backrooms” and “Obsession” doing much of the heavy lifting. 
Despite the improvement, the box office has yet to full return to pre-pandemic levels, with the summer tracking roughly 3.5% behind summer 2019, said Comscore’s Paul Dergarabedian. 
And Dergarabedian questioned how the industry could replicate a success that, in his words, was “authentically and organically created” rather than manufactured: “It just happened,” he said. 
Ramirez argued the broader summer slate  franchise tentpoles like “Toy Story 5” alongside some original surprises  points to a healthy box office regardless, a reminder that “it doesn’t always have to be the big summer blockbuster.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.3%Cerys Davies: 2.6%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias10.3%This article: 4.9%Cerys Davies: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias4.9%This article: 8.4%Cerys Davies: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic8.4%This article: 7.5%Cerys Davies: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic7.5%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Cerys Davies: 7.0%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.9%Cerys Davies: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.4%Cerys Davies: 4.6%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias11.4%This article: 7.3%Cerys Davies: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias7.3%This article: 13.7%Cerys Davies: 4.2%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias13.7%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 2.7%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Cerys Davies: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect8.8%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.4%Cerys Davies: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias12.4%This article: 4.9%Cerys Davies: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.8%Cerys Davies: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority9.8%This article: 5.2%Cerys Davies: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma5.2%This article: 3.1%Cerys Davies: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope3.1%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.2%Cerys Davies: 6.0%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization16.2%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.0%Cerys Davies: 3.5%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion5.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 33.2%Cerys Davies: 3.2%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)33.2%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.7%Cerys Davies: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof3.7%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.3%Cerys Davies: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division4.3%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 31.4%Cerys Davies: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)31.4%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.1%Cerys Davies: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote7.1%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.7%Cerys Davies: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice3.7%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cerys Davies: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

736 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers40%attributed speech445writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJason Blum • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJason Blum • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJason Blum • 25 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Gross • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Gross • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Gross • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJason Blum • 23 words • 0.0% coverageRosie Ramirez • 17 words • 0.0% coverageRosie Ramirez • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Dergarabedian • 27 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Dergarabedian • 27 words • 100.0% coverageRosie Ramirez • 38 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Paul Dergarabedian

100%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words19% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Unattributed Quote+50.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Paul Dergarabedian: 50.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice+50.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Paul Dergarabedian: 50.0%50.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.