PDA

View Full Version : What is "Horror"?



Kholi
06-17-2006, 03:06 PM
Hey guys n'gals.

So, in light of the newest, and probably the best yet to come, DVXuser fest... I wanted to start an open and FRIENDLY discussion on just what horror is?

Lets keep it friendly and valid. And, while some of us might think that it's self-explanatory, the genre really isn't as clear-cut as it once was. It might be difficult to discern between sci-fi, adventure, suspense, and thrillers that contain blood, guts and scares. Alien comes to mind when speaking on Sci-Fi. It's scary, but I don't know if that qualifies as a horror movie.

I'm no know-it-all on the subject. So, I'll start it off with a question...

Can PG-13 really not be horror? At the moment, I can't recall any PG-13 horror movies at all. Anyone have examples?

Domino Harvey
06-17-2006, 03:32 PM
I know you see movies like Pirates Of The Caribbean [PG - PG/13] They say things like MILD horror. And some other kids films have things like mild horror. But havent seen any that have total horror.

(After checking some DVD's - War Of The Worlds Is moderate horror at a 12?)

Good point though.

Matt Sconce
06-17-2006, 04:20 PM
Prime Example is What Lies Beneath. PG-13 and absolutely wonderful! Another Example is the Sixth Sense. And of course......"THE RING!!!" I love when horror movies use fear in the way these previously mentioned movies do. They play with your mind.

Alex DePew
06-17-2006, 04:23 PM
M. Knights are PG-13.

My take on horror is this. Are you scared through a large portion of the movie? Is the point of the movie to make you grip your seat?

Alien is not horror. Event Horizon is.

Any movie with zombies, vampires, werewolves, mummies (the Egyptian variety), lagoon creatures is horror.

Any movie that contains more than 4 british actors sitting around driking tea, discussing life, love and loss is horror to me. But that might just be me.

Kholi
06-17-2006, 04:25 PM
Well, some peopple might sit through Jurassic Park scared.. .does that make it horror?

Event Horizon wasn't scary to me at all. I actually thought it was a sci-fi movie, it's news to me that it's classified as horror.

It's hard to say what is and what is not.

EJ Pennypacker
06-17-2006, 05:27 PM
WHEN A STRANGER CALLS (PG13)

Although I'd call that a POS more than a Horror.

EJ

Alex DePew
06-17-2006, 05:37 PM
Well, some peopple might sit through Jurassic Park scared.. .does that make it horror?

Event Horizon wasn't scary to me at all. I actually thought it was a sci-fi movie, it's news to me that it's classified as horror.

It's hard to say what is and what is not.

Event Horizon could be both. I saw the movie with horrible expectations so it turned out okay for me.

Jurrasic Park could be considered horror. I wonder if anyone will try to make a 6 minute movie with dinasours! That would be both horrible and awesome at the same time.

Weston
06-17-2006, 08:42 PM
i think for a horror you have to be 'horrified' at some point when watching it. I would not consider M. Nights to be horrors but thrillers......thrillers i guess could be called the "feel good horror". You leave a thriller exillerated and a bit frightened, but you may leave a horror frightened and maybe a bit depressed. Depressed might not be the right word.....i think its just that the scary things you see it a horror should sink in more. Horror definatley is much more violent....and perhaps feels more real?

in jurassic park....which i think is more of a thriller.....you see the severed arm of samuel jackson...its a scary jolt.

In the hills have eyes...which i consider to be more of a horror....(but which i didnt really like) one character gets locked in a freezer type thing that FULL of severed arms.......

one is frightening and one is horrifying.

thats my opinion anyway...

Blaine
06-17-2006, 08:48 PM
Can PG-13 really not be horror? At the moment, I can't recall any PG-13 horror movies at all. Anyone have examples?
Poltergeist was re-rated PG-13 after appeal (originally R)

http://yoursay.imdb.com/title/tt0084516/

and 'Salem's Lot was made for TV...twice.

Kholi
06-17-2006, 08:56 PM
Poltergeist was re-rated PG-13 after appeal (originally R)

http://yoursay.imdb.com/title/tt0084516/

and 'Salem's Lot was made for TV...twice.

Blaine to the rescue. Poltergeist is definitely a horror movie in my book. There are supernatural going-ons and at some points, monsters.

Ringing toy telephones... etc. Great example.

On the subject of M. Night-- I do not consider his movies horror movies either. Though "The Sixth Sense" included moments-to-make-you-pee-pee, it was still more of a thriller. A "What's really going on?" kinda thing.

Blaine
06-17-2006, 11:08 PM
Also, Gremlins was PG and Tremors was PG-13. Both are listed as horror, though I'm not sure if I think Tremors is or not. Never saw Gremlins, so I wouldn't know. :undecided

Alex DePew
06-18-2006, 12:32 AM
So to get an idea, what would be the thinking man's horror? What are the prime example of great storytelling in horror? What are your favs in this respect?

maestro1d
06-18-2006, 01:17 AM
Hey guys n'gals.

So, in light of the newest, and probably the best yet to come, DVXuser fest... I wanted to start an open and FRIENDLY discussion on just what horror is?

Lets keep it friendly and valid. And, while some of us might think that it's self-explanatory, the genre really isn't as clear-cut as it once was. It might be difficult to discern between sci-fi, adventure, suspense, and thrillers that contain blood, guts and scares. Alien comes to mind when speaking on Sci-Fi. It's scary, but I don't know if that qualifies as a horror movie.

I'm no know-it-all on the subject. So, I'll start it off with a question...

Can PG-13 really not be horror? At the moment, I can't recall any PG-13 horror movies at all. Anyone have examples?
The first PG-13 movie ever made, in fact, the one in which the code was created for was "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." That to me, is the closest any PG-13 film has ever come to the horror genre.

True, it has all the goofiness and light-hearted romp chase scenes which break enough tension to keep it from being an actual horror picture- but go back and watch scenes where the damsel (K Capshaw) has to reach her hand into a hole filled with crawling bugs, skulls in a collapsing room with spikes, beating hearts ripped from chests, "chilled monkey brains" served ahi tuna style and bugs being slurped on the half shell... you get the idea.

More of an homage to the pulp fiction/horror genre of the 30's and 40's, but damn cool stuff nonetheless. Is it horror? Well... yeah, kinda. Is it slasher 80's horror? No- but who cares. Ultimately it's scarier than the ditzy blonde teen being hacked to bits after being dumb enough to go outside and look around saying "hello?.. Who's the-there?"

In TEMPLE, The scenes where the blood cult stuff happens (depicting a realistic human sacrifice scene) are unbelieavably scary- it is easy to see why they had to create this special rating.

It was really a testament to Spielberg's power at the time- He wanted to release an R rated style film packed with violence that kids could still see and get away with... thank goodness there were no shots of any naked breasts in it! It would never have passed for heaven's sakes dontcha know.

It worked and the MPAA (or CARA or whatever they call it now) went for it and we all won with a great movie. Problem is, they should have scrapped that PG-13 rating afterwards. Most other PG-13 stuff is really just PG. No need for the special rating.

I remember watching the Steve Martin comedy "The Jerk"- the first R rated picture I saw as a kid. Does this really rate a higher level of kid-no-see-it-ness to the PG-13 INDY TEMPLE DOOM? Nope. Just my 2 cents.

J.R. Hudson
06-18-2006, 01:19 AM
Event Horizon wasn't scary to me at all. I actually thought it was a sci-fi movie, it's news to me that it's classified as horror.

It's hard to say what is and what is not.

I agree ! I found this film an enigam that it was even liked. NOt scary and not interesting IMO

maestro1d
06-18-2006, 01:21 AM
Also, Gremlins was PG and Tremors was PG-13. Both are listed as horror, though I'm not sure if I think Tremors is or not. Never saw Gremlins, so I wouldn't know. :undecided
I'd call tremors horror. Monster horror the way of Jaws or any 50's monster flicks- but yes, horror.

Gremlins would be too. Creatures killing people in a house at Christmas time. Hmmm. Yep- horror. Cute, cuddly Spielbergesque... but horror.

maestro1d
06-18-2006, 01:22 AM
So to get an idea, what would be the thinking man's horror? What are the prime example of great storytelling in horror? What are your favs in this respect?
Far and away one of the greatest horror films of all time... the Shining.

J.R. Hudson
06-18-2006, 01:25 AM
The Shining was /is evil scary horror all the way

Tremor's is toally Horror in it's own bitchen way

maestro1d
06-18-2006, 01:39 AM
M. Knights are PG-13.

My take on horror is this. Are you scared through a large portion of the movie? Is the point of the movie to make you grip your seat?

Alien is not horror. Event Horizon is.

Any movie with zombies, vampires, werewolves, mummies (the Egyptian variety), lagoon creatures is horror.

Any movie that contains more than 4 british actors sitting around driking tea, discussing life, love and loss is horror to me. But that might just be me.
I would disagree and say that "Alien" is horror.

People say no, cause it's set in space, so it's sci-fi. That's like saying wine isn't alcohol when it's served at communion. Still alcohol.

Think of a traditional cheesy horror flick... You have an omnipotently powerful slasher chasing a scared woman around a creepy dark house in the middle of no where, and no one can help her... Horror, right?

Now consider Alien...

You have an omnipotently powerful alien monster chasing a scared woman around a creepy dark spaceship in the middle of no where (outer space), and no one can help her....

Sounds like horror to me. Its just the setting that has changed.

It's why many people called Star Wars a "Space Opera" or "Space Western"... but that's a whole other post...

And yes... Four brit actors sitting around talking about the unbearableness of it all while tearfully contemplating the joy of life's pain has got to be THE QUINTISSENTIAL horror flick....

:-)

GenJerDan
06-18-2006, 01:52 AM
Any movie with zombies, vampires, werewolves, mummies (the Egyptian variety), lagoon creatures is horror.

Like Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy, et al. :)

Hopefully, the definition will be broad enough to include things like thriller/chiller.

theAlchemist
06-18-2006, 07:36 AM
Classifying a movie in a genre is not that easy.
Partly because most movies aren't just one genre alone and partly because genres evolve like almost everything else.
So we tend to classify movies in the genre we think it belongs to most at the time it was seen.

I don't think horror can be defined very easily (excluding the obvious ones).
Movies get classified as (partly) horror for different reasons.

In my opinion most horror movies aren't scary at all.
Maybe I have nerves of steel :cool:
So I obviously don't think a horror movie should scare the audience.
It's just too subjective.
And even if a movie is scary it still isn't by definition a horror movie.

To those people that do think a horror movie should scare the audience:
Movies like brain dead, army of darkness etc.
I assume you classify that as horror and not comedy (correct me if I'm wrong).
You can't possible think I believe you to be horrified/scared by that :eek: (assuming you're older than... lets say 12)

It's the sum of a lot of different things that decide wether a movie can be classified as at least partly horror.
Possible my only two requirements of a horror movie are:

-It copes with a darker side of life.
-It copes with the main character(s) fear for something.One of these or both requirements combined with other things decide for me wether a movie is horror.

Obviously that doesn't mean that every movie coping with a darker side of life and/or the main character(s) fear is horror.

Conclusion:
I don't really have a "logical" definition of horror.
Just some general guidelines that one of the above mentioned requirements is in it.
I just go with what my mind says when I see it.


A couple posts back someone said he didn't classify Alien as a horror movie.
How anyone can think that is beyond me, but if that movie doesn't fit in his definition of horror then that's fine by me.
I think the best way to do this horrorfest is to let everybody decide for him/herself what horror is and what not.
The horror genre is too beloved to limit :D

Blaine
06-18-2006, 08:20 AM
Here is the definition of HORROR from: http://www.filmsite.org/horrorfilms.html

"Horror Films are unsettling films designed to frighten and panic, cause dread and alarm, and to invoke our hidden worst fears, often in a terrifying, shocking finale, while captivating and entertaining us at the same time in a cathartic experience. Horror films effectively center on the dark side of life, the forbidden, and strange and alarming events. They deal with our most primal nature and its fears: our nightmares, our vulnerability, our alienation, our revulsions, our terror of the unknown, our fear of death and dismemberment, loss of identity, or fear of sexuality.

Horror films go back as far as the onset of films themselves, over a 100 years ago. From our earliest days, we use our vivid imaginations to see ghosts in shadowy shapes, to be emotionally connected to the unknown and to fear things that are improbable. Watching a horror film gives an opening into that scary world, into an outlet for the essence of fear itself, without actually being in danger. Weird as it sounds, there's a very real thrill and fun factor in being scared or watching disturbing, horrific images.

Whatever dark, primitive, and revolting traits that simultaneously attract and repel us are featured in the horror genre. Horror films are often combined with science fiction when the menace or monster is related to a corruption of technology, or when Earth is threatened by aliens. The fantasy and supernatural film genres are not synonymous with the horror genre, although thriller films may have some relation when they focus on the revolting and horrible acts of the killer/madman. Horror films are also known as chillers, scary movies, spookfests, and the macabre.

Horror films, when done well and with less reliance on horrifying special effects, can be extremely potent film forms, tapping into our dream states and the horror of the irrational and unknown, and the horror within man himself. (The best horror films only imply or suggest the horror in subtle ways, rather than blatantly displaying it, i.e., Val Lewton's horror films.) In horror films, the irrational forces of chaos or horror invariably need to be defeated, and often these films end with a return to normalcy and victory over the monstrous.

Of necessity, the earliest horror films were Gothic in style - meaning that they were usually set in spooky old mansions, castles, or fog-shrouded, dark and shadowy locales. Their main characters have included "unknown," human, supernatural or grotesque creatures, ranging from vampires, demented madmen, devils, unfriendly ghosts, monsters, mad scientists, "Frankensteins," "Jekyll/Hyde" dualities, demons, zombies, evil spirits, arch fiends, Satanic villains, the "possessed," werewolves and freaks to even the unseen, diabolical presence of evil.

Horror films developed out of a number of sources: folktales with devil characters, witchcraft, fables, myths, ghost stories, Grand Guignol melodramas, and Gothic or Victorian novels from Europe by way of Mary Shelley or Irish writer Bram Stoker. In many ways, the expressionistic German silent cinema led the world in films of horror and the supernatural, and established its cinematic vocabulary and style."


Visit the site for examples and more info...

EDIT: here is the page with a listing of some of what they consider HORROR: http://www.filmsite.org/horrorfilms5.html

Kholi
06-18-2006, 11:33 AM
Final Destination is DEFINITELY horror. THat's on that list.

Alien is also on that list... I mean I can see how it could be classified as horror.

THanks for the links, and for taking the time to copy and paste that, Blaine.

It'll be interesting to see who comes up with what this fest. Count on a near PG-13 entry from me, if I can make this one.

Ben Sliker
06-18-2006, 11:57 AM
Blaine,
I'm going to try to one-up you on this one, this is straight from my Film Styles and Genres Class at the University of Wisconsin.

This is Noel Carrol's definition of Horror, or what he likes to call "Art Horror" In lamens terms, to be classified as a horror film, the film must contain A. A monster and that that monster is B. horrifying.

Carrol states "I am concurrently art-horrified by by some Monster X, say dracula, if and only if 1) I am in some state of abnormal, physically felt agitation (shuddering, tingling, screaming, etc.) which 2) has been caused by a) the thought: that dracula is a possible being; and by the evaluative thoughts taht b) said Dracula has the property of being physically (and perhaps morally and socially) threatening in the ways portrayed in the fiction and that c) said dracula has the property of being impure, where c) such thoughts are usually accompanied by the desire to avoid the touch of things like Dracula." (27)

To be a monster, it must refer to “any being not believed to exist now according to contemporary science.” (27) From that, you could say that dinosaurs and aliens can be monsters. The monster must also be threatening AND impure. “If the monster were only evaluated as potentially threatening, the emotion would be fear; if only potentially impure, the emotion would be disgust” (28)

Having a monster in a film doesn’t make it a horror film but it is a necessary component. If you do not have a monster, then it is a terror film. Here’s how to construct your monster: Make sure that the same emotion that is felt on-screen is felt of-screen by the audience. Monsters can be a vehicle for psycho analytical repression – the reality of dreams, say repressed sexual urges, things that are normally private activities displayed grotesquely in public. The Monster can be an encapsulation of repressed feelings. The monster that is repressed, is also oppressed as well (they are a forced deemed dangerous). They can vent or be a service of oppression.

Here are more ways to structure a monster, if you don’t want a psychoanalytical one. They can just be dangerous, unnatural, frightening, or disgusting. The quality of being impure comes from the concept of intersticiality (or the space between parts, the quality of being in between). For instance, a zombie is intersticial, because it is in between being dead and alive. This can also take the form of being a fusion of composite parts from otherwise incompatible categories, for example, a human and a wolf, a machine and an insect, or an infant and a human (let’s not forget possession here.) One more is being across different times and space or “fission”. Temporal fission, or time fission, is evident in the case of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, or a doppleganger, the concept that there is an evil version of you out there somewhere. And lastly there is magnification and massification, as in a giant ant or a swarm of locusts, respectively.

If you would like further reading on this, I suggest, Noel Carrol’s “The nature of Horror”, and Robin Wood’s “”Introduction to the American Horror film”

And that kids, is what you learn in college.
:)

Kholi
06-18-2006, 12:00 PM
Blaine,
I'm going to try to one-up you on this one, this is straight from my Film Styles and Genres Class at the University of Wisconsin.

This is Noel Carrol's definition of Horror, or what he likes to call "Art Horror" In lamens terms, to be classified as a horror film, the film must contain A. A monster and that that monster is B. horrifying.

Carrol states "I am concurrently art-horrified by by some Monster X, say dracula, if and only if 1) I am in some state of abnormal, physically felt agitation (shuddering, tingling, screaming, etc.) which 2) has been caused by a) the thought: that dracula is a possible being; and by the evaluative thoughts taht b) said Dracula has the property of being physically (and perhaps morally and socially) threatening in the ways portrayed in the fiction and that c) said dracula has the property of being impure, where c) such thoughts are usually accompanied by the desire to avoid the touch of things like Dracula." (27)

To be a monster, it must refer to “any being not believed to exist now according to contemporary science.” (27) From that, you could say that dinosaurs and aliens can be monsters. The monster must also be threatening AND impure. “If the monster were only evaluated as potentially threatening, the emotion would be fear; if only potentially impure, the emotion would be disgust” (28)

Having a monster in a film doesn’t make it a horror film but it is a necessary component. If you do not have a monster, then it is a terror film. Here’s how to construct your monster: Make sure that the same emotion that is felt on-screen is felt of-screen by the audience. Monsters can be a vehicle for psycho analytical repression – the reality of dreams, say repressed sexual urges, things that are normally private activities displayed grotesquely in public. The Monster can be an encapsulation of repressed feelings. The monster that is repressed, is also oppressed as well (they are a forced deemed dangerous). They can vent or be a service of oppression.

Here are more ways to structure a monster, if you don’t want a psychoanalytical one. They can just be dangerous, unnatural, frightening, or disgusting. The quality of being impure comes from the concept of intersticiality (or the space between parts, the quality of being in between). For instance, a zombie is intersticial, because it is in between being dead and alive. This can also take the form of being a fusion of composite parts from otherwise incompatible categories, for example, a human and a wolf, a machine and an insect, or an infant and a human (let’s not forget possession here.) One more is being across different times and space or “fission”. Temporal fission, or time fission, is evident in the case of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, or a doppleganger, the concept that there is an evil version of you out there somewhere. And lastly there is magnification and massification, as in a giant ant or a swarm of locusts, respectively.

If you would like further reading on this, I suggest, Noel Carrol’s “The nature of Horror”, and Robin Wood’s “”Introduction to the American Horror film”

And that kids, is what you learn in college.
:)

You know what that brings to mind? "Christine" That's personification. The car is the monster in that movie, which makes it an outright horror story.

THanks for that info.

Alex DePew
06-18-2006, 06:23 PM
Alright, I'll concede the point. I know a good argument when I hear one. Alien is both sci-fi and horror.:) Maestro1d, you made a great comparisson to the slasher genre and I applaud you.

And the Shining and Poltergeist are great examples. What else are peoples favorites?

SilverWolf
06-18-2006, 07:07 PM
I agree with Final Destination being horror and I want to add Childs play into the mix

Mark Harris
06-18-2006, 08:16 PM
Alright, I'll concede the point. I know a good argument when I hear one. Alien is both sci-fi and horror.:) Maestro1d, you made a great comparisson to the slasher genre and I applaud you.

And the Shining and Poltergeist are great examples. What else are peoples favorites?

Night of the Hunter is one damned creepy movie I always categorize as horror. Also Mamoulian's Jekyll and Hyde is pretty creepy, if you've never seen it.

I also really liked the Salem's Lot mini series that Hooper did.

Kholi
06-18-2006, 08:45 PM
Just sitting here thinking... and wanted to say that I'm glad horror movies don't tend to get too deep.

You can always pull morals out of them, but bottom line is it's just a scare.

Which means that I don't have to go busting my brain for an onion of an idea. And by onion I mean multi-layered.

ABout to put in James Gunn's "Dawn Of The Dead" ... love that movie. Definitely HOrror.

maestro1d
06-19-2006, 12:05 AM
Alright, I'll concede the point. I know a good argument when I hear one. Alien is both sci-fi and horror.:) Maestro1d, you made a great comparisson to the slasher genre and I applaud you.

And the Shining and Poltergeist are great examples. What else are peoples favorites?
Thanks- Nice thread here, good discussions.

J.R. Hudson
06-19-2006, 12:39 AM
Just sitting here thinking... and wanted to say that I'm glad horror movies don't tend to get too deep.

You can always pull morals out of them, but bottom line is it's just a scare.

Which means that I don't have to go busting my brain for an onion of an idea. And by onion I mean multi-layered.

ABout to put in James Gunn's "Dawn Of The Dead" ... love that movie. Definitely HOrror.

Horror is my favorite genere. Dawn 04 rules.

DarkMatter
06-19-2006, 01:10 AM
Here is the definition of HORROR from: http://www.filmsite.org/horrorfilms.html

"Horror Films are unsettling films designed to frighten and panic, cause dread and alarm, and to invoke our hidden worst fears, often in a terrifying, shocking finale, while captivating and entertaining us at the same time in a cathartic experience. Horror films effectively center on the dark side of life, the forbidden, and strange and alarming events. They deal with our most primal nature and its fears: our nightmares, our vulnerability, our alienation, our revulsions, our terror of the unknown, our fear of death and dismemberment, loss of identity, or fear of sexuality.

This is a more valid and concise definition of Horror. I still don't get the sci-fi argument for Alien, It is a sci-fi horror movie for hell sakes, it's not Star Trek! As far as the A. monster B. scary, definition I heard, try Irreversible on for size, That movie is full of A. monsters and it is B. scary. It is listed as a thriller, but i can't think of a movie more horrifying. See also, Man Bites Dog. These movies will change the way you view horror as an entity forever.
BTW you may not find these at your local video store, but both are available at Netflix.

Ben Sliker
06-19-2006, 08:43 AM
moviestunts,
My definition was a scholarly definition, someone actually trying to get down to what a horror film is. And i think you didn't read far enough into the definition. The monster has to be horrifying, not just scary. Here is what makes a monster horrifying:


Carrol states "I am concurrently art-horrified by by some Monster X, say dracula, if and only if 1) I am in some state of abnormal, physically felt agitation (shuddering, tingling, screaming, etc.) which 2) has been caused by a) the thought: that dracula is a possible being; and by the evaluative thoughts taht b) said Dracula has the property of being physically (and perhaps morally and socially) threatening in the ways portrayed in the fiction and that c) said dracula has the property of being impure, where c) such thoughts are usually accompanied by the desire to avoid the touch of things like Dracula." (27)

I felt that the filmsite.org definition was rather generalized, the one i gave was from an actual scholarly article. I have never seen irreversable or man bites dog, but if they fit the description, then they are horror films! If they don't fit that description, this author believes them to be another type of scary film, perhaps a terror or thriller film.

I can do more research into other articles, in fact i just might, i need a little brush up on my genre studies. I'll look for those two at my local indie video store.:nads:

Kholi
06-19-2006, 09:53 AM
Horror is my favorite genere. Dawn 04 rules.

Horror is technically my favorite genre, as well. But, I'm kinda getting out of it. They just aren't too terribly good anymore.

James Gunn is great, and I love what's been done with Dawn of The Dead 04. Really, the people who do Resident Evil need to take some notes, man.

Dawn 04 was so intense.

DarkMatter
06-19-2006, 04:33 PM
moviestunts,
My definition was a scholarly definition, someone actually trying to get down to what a horror film is. And i think you didn't read far enough into the definition. The monster has to be horrifying, not just scary. Here is what makes a monster horrifying:



I felt that the filmsite.org definition was rather generalized, the one i gave was from an actual scholarly article. I have never seen irreversable or man bites dog, but if they fit the description, then they are horror films! If they don't fit that description, this author believes them to be another type of scary film, perhaps a terror or thriller film.

I can do more research into other articles, in fact i just might, i need a little brush up on my genre studies. I'll look for those two at my local indie video store.:nads:
I have to warn anyone who rents these movies, NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART, or poeple easily offended, they are shot VERY realistically, documentary style. Getting back to definitions of Horror it boils down to each his own. I'm not sure what this was for:nads: If it was directed at me, it was poor taste and childish to say the least.

Ben Sliker
06-19-2006, 06:50 PM
lol. sorry, i don't mean to offend, sometimes my emoticon use is misguided, as i don't take them for more than a grain of salt, i assume others don't either. I am actually kinda psyched about catching those two flicks. As for the smiley, I was like oh man ... that little guy got kicked in the nuts, that's pretty funny, ill put that at the end of my message. I guess i just kicked myself in the nuts.

but i wouldn't say horror is a "to each his own" concept. There are some guidelines, and i assume that's why these contests have genres to them, so that people just don't submit anything. I wouldn't say that if a person submitted a "terror" film that they should be disqualified or anything ... hell maybe i am, i don't know. But then of course, that's not up to me.

I was imagining if people were stuck for concepts that they could go back to a definition and start from there. Hence, make up a monster, then make it horrifying and immoral. And then you qualify to be in the contest. And then again, maybe i'm just a genre rule nazi.

MOVIE STUNTS ->:nads: <-Hybridtheory

maestro1d
06-19-2006, 07:07 PM
Night of the Hunter is one damned creepy movie I always categorize as horror. Also Mamoulian's Jekyll and Hyde is pretty creepy, if you've never seen it.

I also really liked the Salem's Lot mini series that Hooper did.
Salem's Lot was very scary... probably one of the main reasons my brother and I, and all the other kids I knew growing up in the late 70's couldn't sleep for like a year.

The scene where the boy comes back and taps at the window after he is a vampire, and is trying to get his brother to let him back in the house....

Shudder. I am gonna go watch Austin Powers about five times so I can forget it now. Thanks a lot! Thought I had successfully blocked that friggin vampire scene out during childhood. Sigh.

:-)

DarkMatter
06-19-2006, 07:21 PM
lol. sorry, i don't mean to offend, sometimes my emoticon use is misguided, as i don't take them for more than a grain of salt, i assume others don't either. I am actually kinda psyched about catching those two flicks. As for the smiley, I was like oh man ... that little guy got kicked in the nuts, that's pretty funny, ill put that at the end of my message. I guess i just kicked myself in the nuts.

but i wouldn't say horror is a "to each his own" concept. There are some guidelines, and i assume that's why these contests have genres to them, so that people just don't submit anything. I wouldn't say that if a person submitted a "terror" film that they should be disqualified or anything ... hell maybe i am, i don't know. But then of course, that's not up to me.

I was imagining if people were stuck for concepts that they could go back to a definition and start from there. Hence, make up a monster, then make it horrifying and immoral. And then you qualify to be in the contest. And then again, maybe i'm just a genre rule nazi.

MOVIE STUNTS ->:nads: <-Hybridtheory
Lol, I'm interested to know what you think of those two movies, PM me and tell me what you thought. I won't say that my Horror movie will be anything but straight laced terror; but these conversations are fun. And in case you can't tell I LOVE:2vrolijk_08: movies.

maestro1d
06-20-2006, 03:28 AM
WHEN A STRANGER CALLS (PG13)

Although I'd call that a POS more than a Horror.

EJ
Great friggin movie- the quintessential slasher.

The best in babysitter slasher horror, hands down. Charles Durning and Carol Kane's best work (except all of Kane's work is her best work- man... a RIOT in Scrooged and Princess Bride)

"Have you checked the children?"

Yikes... creepy, creepy, creepy. Before there was Freddie, or Jason, there was Stranger Calls. RENT IT TODAY.

maestro1d
06-20-2006, 03:50 AM
The Shining was /is evil scary horror all the way

Tremor's is toally Horror in it's own bitchen way
I always loved Tremors.

OK. I'll just say it.

I loved tremors before tremors was cool. There, i said it.

er... yeah. Any way- I thought one of the bets spots in Tremors was with Kevin Bacon... In full redneck accent, after seeing one of the tentacles come out of the ground and do some nastiness he yells... "what the hell was that.... <PAUSE> ...I MEAN WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?!?!".

I dunno. Quirky... But there's just something about the way he does that line- i don't know if he mucked up the timing of the line and they just kept it- but I remember it played great.

It was just one of those kinda lines that always kinda bothered me but I loved at the same time, cause it felt odd... I just appreciated the moment finally for it's realness.

It added a true sense of panic to his performance, accidental or not. I remember they even used it in the trailer it was so funny.

OK... I KNOW- am getting a little TOO specific here. LOL

Cool pick though.

DON'T EVEN get me started on SHINING. I Could teach a community college course with this one film alone.... :-)

maestro1d
06-20-2006, 04:35 AM
Alright, I'll concede the point. I know a good argument when I hear one. Alien is both sci-fi and horror.:) Maestro1d, you made a great comparisson to the slasher genre and I applaud you.

And the Shining and Poltergeist are great examples. What else are peoples favorites?
OK... just woke up, reading e-mail and browsing site here, and a few neurons clicked together.

Here we go: My FAVE pre-"Shining" horror flick (late 70s) HAS GOT TO be "The Changeling" with George C Scott. Like what... 1978, 1979?

Now, for those who don't know it, this is one of THE scariest movies of all time.

Why? You have the protagonist (Scott) plagued by the memory of the recent death of a child- he is mourning, and keeps seeing that darn kids ball (fave toy) from his son.

He tries putting it away... ball keeps turning up.. hmm that's funny "thought I put this way" type grimace of puzzlement from Scott... puts away again. Keeps appearing in odd places. Finally, he is starting to think he's losing his mind... he's getting creeped out.

OK. I KNOW... Let's put an end to this (he thinks)... One night, he goes for long, purposeful drive. ... tosses son's favorite toy ball off bridge.... Sees it hit water. Gets in car, starts drive home.

Whew! Glad that's over.

He walks in front door, as he steps in house, he hears noise, looks up- sees ball (slightly damp?) slowly starts falling down stairs, plop, plop, plop one at a time... finally rests at threshold near his feet.

Wow.

NOW WHAT sadistic f-in genius RUINED my childhood rem sleep with this scene??? LOL. I should probably still be in therapy.

We won't even talk about the creepy Virginian era wheelchair rocking on its own, in the locked attic... on investigation... it stops as door is opened... nope... nothing wrong here... Then later in movie, it spins and races towards attic door as Scott slams it shut. (remember in Poltergeist... the toy Hulk riding flying horse in poltergeist scene, and the spinning record with protractor, as door slams shut? Changeling, Exorcist, etc)

Deep breaths.... relax. Whew. Okay... Find a happy place...

In fact, and I am proud to stake my name on this... The RING and RINGU blatantly plagiarized this movie.

Rent it... you'll see. All the kid buried in the well stuff is straight from Changeling. "The Ring" is actually a direct rip-off mixture of two movies that the writer and/or director MUST have seen as a kid: "Changeling" and the 80's video rental cult classic "Videodrome".

Videodrome (probably James Woods greatest role outside 'Cop', 'Salvador', 'Best Seller' and 'The Oninon Field') was one of the first great psy-horror movies (with Deborah Harry from Blondie- youza).

Any way. All the "IS it REAL or the VIDEO TAPE" from stuff from "the Ring" is straight from Videodrome. Especially touching screen with the fly, fly in/out of screen? And the (SHUDDER) little girl coming out of the tv at the end- TOTALLY VIDEODROME.

But also, it creeps you out (the ring) because unlike Changeling, where u get to go "whew" at the end when the crime is solved, and childs body is put to rest... no, no, no my friends. The GENIUS directors (did is say they stole? sorry... apologies) adds the teriffic ploy of the girl coming out of well to wreak havoc as a nasty little demoness curr.

Man. This is not your father's Changeling.

Very scary.

Mark Harris
06-20-2006, 07:10 AM
Salem's Lot was very scary... probably one of the main reasons my brother and I, and all the other kids I knew growing up in the late 70's couldn't sleep for like a year.

The scene where the boy comes back and taps at the window after he is a vampire, and is trying to get his brother to let him back in the house....

Shudder. I am gonna go watch Austin Powers about five times so I can forget it now. Thanks a lot! Thought I had successfully blocked that friggin vampire scene out during childhood. Sigh.

:-)

Yeah, I also dig how Barlow was this ancient, barely coherent animal, rather than this slick, suave dracula-type. Much more Nosferatu.

GenJerDan
06-20-2006, 07:27 AM
OK... just woke up, reading e-mail and browsing site here, and a few neurons clicked together.

Here we go: My FAVE pre-"Shining" horror flick (late 70s) HAS GOT TO be "The Changeling" with George C Scott. Like what... 1978, 1979?. . .

I posted a teeny clip from it a while back, asking if anyone knew what sort of lens they got for a shot. (The pan of the diningroom/library(?), into the hall leading to the "music" room.)

Yes, scary movie, without being "startling", which too many rely on these days.

Texture
06-20-2006, 09:33 AM
A few random thoughts...

One might think all horror flicks have monsters and ghosts.

One of the greatest horror flicks ever made had nothing to do with the supernatural.

Coppola's Apocolypse Now.


And then you've got David Lynch. who's got a homeless guy living next to a dumpster behind a restaurant... This "monster" seems to be spinning the whole scene, like the witches in Shakespeare's, Macbeth... The horror in his Lynch's seems to partly involve turning the commonplace inside out. Mullholland Drive seems to be a cross road, where the Nancy Drew meets the occult and seemingly gets devoured.

How close to reality can you take a film and still scare the be-jesus out of the audience?


Other fabulous horrors include paying close to three dollars for a gallon of gas!

Paul Reichelt
06-20-2006, 09:35 AM
^ Exactly.

My first "brainstormed" idea is pretty nifty, however its neither a really good "screamer" nor at the same time something "Scary to the core".

Tough to find that good balance of something that really fits the horror genre :)

Kholi
06-20-2006, 09:43 AM
Adding to the PG-13 list.. and I can't believe I forgot about this movie--

The Gate

It's a fun horror movie, the one where the kids find the hole in their backyard? Awesome. Can't wait to see it this weekend when it gets here.

As far as Horror not including monsters and ghosts--

Of course. Then again, it's quite difficult to pull something like that off in six minutes.

Ben Sliker
06-20-2006, 11:05 AM
i will throw a cronenberg selection in there "The Brood" --- it has little people in it ... AAH.

Oh, btw, "monster" doesn't mean it has to have 8 tentacles and goo dripping from it's mouth. I would call Jack's charater in the Shining a monster, monsters can be humans, whatever, as long as they are not known to exist by current science. Which ... is a lot.

Future user
06-20-2006, 09:54 PM
About a billion years ago I got permission to stay up and watch The Trilogy of Terror. Yeah, my folks new it would be okay. I was out by nine. But if my dad's telling of the story about the little statue coming to life and hacking at the girls ankles with a kitchen knife, winding up in the oven and getting all quiet and a climax with her then on the phone to her mom saying "come on over..." all the while squating on the floor with the knife in her hand is accurate? Then this has to be just about the kreepiest movie I have heard of. I think it's even in black and white.
So..... horror movies?
Psycho
The Thing (remake)
the black and white movie with the "breathing door" and the statue garden where the statues are pinching the actors?
The Exorcist
The Ammityville Horror
Anything with Paris Hilton trying to act
Gigli

Ben Sliker
06-20-2006, 11:04 PM
Anything with Paris Hilton trying to act
Gigli

lol.

telebay
06-20-2006, 11:29 PM
I think that there should be an outline such as the following to understand and categorize the genre of horror:

Top Level: Drama (many sub-levels could go under this, but I'll only focus on the "horror line" here!)
Second Level: Suspense / Thriller (movies such as SILENCE OF THE LAMBS or VERTIGO would go here)
Third Level: Horror

Beneath HORROR would be sub-categories, such as:
a) Slasher
b) Torture
c) Sci-Fi (of the Horror variety -- remember, we are under HORROR, pure sci-fi would have its own dedicated sub beneath DRAMA, possibly)
d) Fantasy
e) Hauntings / Spiritual
f) Occult
g) Monsters (Vamps, Werewolves, Zombies, etc.)
h) Nature (like Jaws)

Okay, so it needs to be FLESHED out -- but my idea is that SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (for instance) is not pure horror, but is closely related in the SUSPENSE / THRILLER genre.

Some rework is needed -- but I think an outline is in order to really nail this down! :)

thematthewbone
06-21-2006, 01:29 AM
i think it is obvious "horror" to one person and "horror" to another can be two rabidly different things.

i think it will just make the festival even more interesting.

which is good.

Ben Sliker
06-21-2006, 09:20 AM
i think the feeling of horror is universal tho, which combined with some other factors, makes a horror film. Shit. I just want to be scared/creeped out, and I think there's a lot of people here who could pull that off.

Future user
06-21-2006, 04:14 PM
White Noise with Michael Keaton scared the crap out of me. I could walk next to my tv for a week.

Kholi
06-21-2006, 04:39 PM
Lmfao.

Funny you said that, I plan on watching that tonight.

Brandon Rice
06-21-2006, 04:42 PM
White Noise with Michael Keaton scared the crap out of me. I could walk next to my tv for a week.

That film was really crazy scary.

Future user
06-21-2006, 08:35 PM
the crazy part is, it didn't really start scaring me until about an hour AFTER I had watched it. And the jumpy bits, you see them coming and it still scares the crap out of you.

maestro1d
06-21-2006, 09:38 PM
Yeah, I also dig how Barlow was this ancient, barely coherent animal, rather than this slick, suave dracula-type. Much more Nosferatu.
Definitely. It's little details like that help make a truly great movie. Speaking of Steven King Horror... this is probably why so many movies made from his books just feel lame in comparison to the novel...

That's what ruined Steven King's "Dark Half" for me- The book rocked, and then when translated to big screen, they stuck way too much "creepy" production value in it.

For instance... the murder scene at the condo:

Now, if I recall, in the book this was supposed to be a nice, elegant type place. Velvet jacketed doormen, potted plants in the hallways and brass elevator rails comes to mind...

The director (thinking he knew better of course) turned it into a creepy looking, run down type building with odd camera angles- he lit it with "wrong side of the track", film noir style primary greens and red highlights.

All of which ruined the effect.

The scene screamed- hey this is a creepy building where a murder is supposed to take place. So when it does, are you scared? Or are you yawning and getting up to buy popcorn? This is not what King wrote.

Yup.... the devil is in the details.

maestro1d
06-21-2006, 09:46 PM
Adding to the PG-13 list.. and I can't believe I forgot about this movie--

The Gate

It's a fun horror movie, the one where the kids find the hole in their backyard? Awesome. Can't wait to see it this weekend when it gets here.

As far as Horror not including monsters and ghosts--

Of course. Then again, it's quite difficult to pull something like that off in six minutes.
Yeah- I liked "The Gate"- saw it with my bro when I was 16...

Scary flick... effects were a little over the top because they were groundbreaking for the time.

Cool movie though. Gives knew meaning to "all hell's breaking loose" LOL

spooky138
06-22-2006, 07:30 AM
The Gate rocks!

I used to own Trilogy of Terror on VHS when I was a kid. I vaguely remember the killer lawn gnome. Also there's a boob in the movie which is way cool for an eight year old boy.

If anyone here has seen Irreversible and Man Bites Dog and enjoyed them, then I recommend The Untold Story, Baise Moi, Guinea Pig, Salo, and Nekromantik as a few more films to check out. You won't find these titles at your neighborhood Blockbuster though!

EDIT: Holy crap! I can't believe I forgot to suggest Cannibal Holocaust!!! It is THE scariest and disturbing film you're likely to ever witness. Trust me.

Ben Sliker
06-22-2006, 07:57 AM
Anyone seen Tetsuo: The Iron Man? Cause you might want to put that in contention for most disturbing horror ever. I'd label it as Japanese Art Horror. Lots of cool stuff done with stop-motion.

Alex DePew
06-22-2006, 08:16 AM
I haven't seen it yet, but I've heard "Audition" is a freaky, scary movie.

DarkMatter
06-22-2006, 05:00 PM
Anyone seen Tetsuo: The Iron Man? Cause you might want to put that in contention for most disturbing horror ever. I'd label it as Japanese Art Horror. Lots of cool stuff done with stop-motion.
Seen it, how about Eraserhead, that's creepy. Did you see Irreversible or Man Bites Dog yet?

Ben Sliker
06-22-2006, 07:30 PM
went to the indie movie rental store but totally forgot about those! Ended up renting rosemary's baby and kiss kiss bang bang, which if anyone hasn't seen the latter, I highly recommend it, and i was doing some old school horror research with the former. (plus the gf had never seen it.)

DarkMatter
06-22-2006, 09:42 PM
went to the indie movie rental store but totally forgot about those!
If you liked Tetsuo... you will probably love Man Bites Dog, and Irreversible.:thumbsup:

Ben Sliker
06-23-2006, 09:12 AM
i wouldn't say that I "loved" tetsuo, probably more mortified and disturbed, but i picked up irreversible last night, they didn't have man bites dog, but i was excited to see "contains horrific scenes of violence and sex" on the cover.

Dario Nieva
06-23-2006, 09:59 AM
Agh I really want to pick up Tetsuo, but I keep getting burned by those Tartan Asian Extreme releases (Some of the movies are quite crappy for the price)

Also "The Gate" was awesome. I never saw the second one though. I just remember seeing the tape in blockbuster as a kid and being like WHAAA?

Kholi
06-23-2006, 10:10 AM
Yeah, I saw the second one. Nowhere near as good.

That's a great example of PG-13 horror, though. I love that movie so much.

Ben Sliker
06-23-2006, 11:04 AM
Well, I just finished Irreversible. And I have to say, I am disturbed, not as much as Tetsuo, but still, it left a mark. The murder scene was definitely brutal but ridiculously realistic, i wonder what the effect was that they used, cause it worked.

But since this is a horror thread, I'm going to say that it is NOT a horror movie. Though horrifying, it doesn't contain anything would qualify as a monster, just humans doing very awful things. If i had to put a genre label on it, I'd say it's an "art-thriller".

I also wonder what kind of crazy rig they had to do all that camerawork.

Kholi
06-23-2006, 12:24 PM
Lmfao.

Sorry you had to go through that.

Matthew B. Moore
06-23-2006, 02:00 PM
I haven't read anything on this thread, but it just strikes me so funny that this issue would come up.
It's not like it's hard...what ever scares the sh#t out of you is horror.
I can understand the "purpose of art film" thread, but come on. There are many levels, but doesn't it all boil down to fear?

Kholi
06-23-2006, 02:08 PM
There really isn't a clean line between thriller and horror. But now it's pretty much agreed that--

You got a killer running around with a butcher knife - Thriller
You got a demon running around with a butcher knife - Horror.

Matt Sconce
06-23-2006, 02:08 PM
I haven't read anything on this thread, but it just strikes me so funny that this issue would come up.
It's not like hard...what ever scares the sh#t out of you is horror.
I can understand the "purpose of art film" thread, but come on. There are many levels, but doesn't it all boil down to fear?

Yes. I believe it boils down to whether or not you have goosebumps and a feeling of fear or dread.

Kholi
06-23-2006, 02:23 PM
Seriously, though--

If people are entering shorts that follow in the vain of SAW or HOSTEL, we'd might as well call it THRILLER fest.

Already seeing that people are planning on doing ultra bloody shorts...

Matthew B. Moore
06-23-2006, 02:24 PM
I mean, this scares me, but not people like my mother.

http://www.spectrumtalent.com/images/talent/39/Bette-Midler-AKA-Brenda.jpg

I know it's all comes down to the individual, but can I assume there is fear for most every one when an image like this pops up?
http://impiousdigest.com/courtney_love_on_drugs.jpg

Ben Sliker
06-23-2006, 02:24 PM
There really isn't a clean line between thriller and horror.

You got a killer running around with a butcher knife - Thriller
You got a demon running around with a butcher knife - Horror.

seems like a pretty clean line to me! :)

Kholi
06-23-2006, 02:25 PM
seems like a pretty clean line to me! :)

Yeah, sorry, I totally got mixed up. LoL.

Thanks for correcting me.

Matt Sconce
06-23-2006, 02:33 PM
A killer running around with a butcher knife is Horror/thriller. There is not a clean line between the two. Halloween has a killer with a butcher knife and it is definitely horror. I think people are gettinjg confused and trying to draw lines where there is not a line. The Net=Thriller Halloween=Horror

From Demons, to stalkers with knives...horror is simply inspiring a feeling of fear of life and limb, dread, and terror in the audience. it does not matter what medium existes in the movie to cause the feeling, as long as it is caused.

Kholi
06-23-2006, 02:38 PM
A killer running around with a butcher knife is Horror/thriller. There is not a clean line between the two. Halloween has a killer with a butcher knife and it is definitely horror. I think people are gettinjg confused and trying to draw lines where there is not a line. The Net=Thriller Halloween=Horror

From Demons, to stalkers with knives...horror is simply inspiring a feeling of fear of life and limb, dread, and terror in the audience. it does not matter what medium existes in the movie to cause the feeling, as long as it is caused.

Halloween is supernatural. A lot more supernatural than SAW would be.

In Halloween, the killer is beaten and everything else, but still persists on. In a thriller, generally once the killer swallows chunks of broken ceramics from a coffee cup sprinkled in his drink by the scared wife character, he's dead.

That's what I mean...
The thread was meant to give people a clear idea of what kind of entries constitute as horror. Msconce... your Hero fest entry wasn't even considered a hero entry by a few people, because it had a ninja in it and you had to defend it, right? Why suffer the same fate because it's not so clear what the judges consider horror and what isn't.

Kholi
06-23-2006, 02:47 PM
Meh, screw it--

Whatever works for whomever. I just hope I don't end up with a dead project again on this one.

spidey
06-23-2006, 02:49 PM
I believe any situation that causes fear is horror. Cased Closed.

Ben Sliker
06-23-2006, 02:50 PM
i agree kholi, that's what i was trying to get at before with the scholar definition i gave earlier in the thread. In order for it to be considered horror, the vehicle that is horrifying can't be explained by science today.

jonnothin
06-23-2006, 02:52 PM
Some of my favorite horror movies on Earth weren't rated R or rated at all!

Creature From The Black Lagoon
Gargoyles
Poltergeist
Horror Hotel
The Black Cat
Black Sabbath
Jaws
The Haunting
...there's tons more but I don't want to hog up space

Kholi
06-23-2006, 02:54 PM
i agree kholi, that's what i was trying to get at before with the scholar definition i gave earlier in the thread. In order for it to be considered horror, the vehicle that is horrifying can't be explained by science today.

Yeah, I know. I totally get what you're saying. I know a few people that actually know that same definition and they totally agree.

Horror is supernatural, for the most part.

There are two killers that are just alike, two different movies--

In Scream, you've got the mask faced killer running about with a knife ripping people knew bowel holes. This killer gets beaten and bruised, but dies when shot (depends on which scream, by the way.) That's thriller.

In Halloween, Micheal Meyers wasn't having any of that sheise. Shot, stabbed, impaled on a white picket fence (remember that one?)... this guy was a supernatural being that couldn't be killed by conventional means. That's horror.

I totally get it. I raelly didn't want anyone to have to explain the theory behind their horror when it came time for judging-- which means I was just trying to help.

But hey, whoever wants to enter whatever, go for it. My [pending] entry probably won't be considered horror because it's so PG-13 that it's... well.. PG.

DarkMatter
06-23-2006, 02:56 PM
Well, I just finished Irreversible. And I have to say, I am disturbed, not as much as Tetsuo, but still, it left a mark. The murder scene was definitely brutal but ridiculously realistic, i wonder what the effect was that they used, cause it worked.

But since this is a horror thread, I'm going to say that it is NOT a horror movie. Though horrifying, it doesn't contain anything would qualify as a monster, just humans doing very awful things. If i had to put a genre label on it, I'd say it's an "art-thriller".

I also wonder what kind of crazy rig they had to do all that camerawork.
What did you think when that guy got his head bashed in with the fire extinguisher all one shot. I veven watched it in slo-mo how the hell did they do that.

Ben Sliker
06-23-2006, 02:59 PM
i missed zombiefest, so i'm going a pretty safe route and shooting up the undead!

But ah, to each his own, there are some that just won't be convinced of a definition for a genre! (That is, unless Jarred comes in and throws the size 20 boot down on a definition for us.)

DarkMatter
06-23-2006, 03:00 PM
But hey, whoever wants to enter whatever, go for it. My [pending] entry probably won't be considered horror because it's so PG-13 that it's... well.. PG.
Lol, i'm shooting for G, I want to terrorize children. jk.

Ben Sliker
06-23-2006, 03:01 PM
What did you think when that guy got his head bashed in with the fire extinguisher all one shot. I veven watched it in slo-mo how the hell did they do that.

i had heard about that before i watched it, i still couldn't believe my eyes, if i hadn't been prepared for that, i might have vomited. Probably just some very gifted visual effects artists and some filters to cover it up, it is also a very dark scene, which gives a little more room for error in that area.

Matt Sconce
06-23-2006, 03:06 PM
The thread was meant to give people a clear idea of what kind of entries constitute as horror.

I agree, and I believe people are confused and telling people many different things. Everyone seems to have their own definition of horror, and is setting what entries are "Horror" based on mere opinions and likes and dislikes. Horror has a section at the local blockbuster. Go there and see what is classified as horror.

This is the Wikipedia definition of a horror film we should be basing our judgements on. It is Universal and makes this truly an open genre horror competition instead of a narrow, biased one.

"A horror film is dominated by elements of horror. This cinematic genre incorporates a number of sub-genres and repeated themes, including but not limited to slashers, vampires, zombies, demonic possession and Satanism, alien mind control, evil children, cannibalism, werewolves, animals attacking humans, inanimate objects brought to life by bane enchantment or twisted science, and haunted houses..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_film (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_film)


Halloween is supernatural. A lot more supernatural than SAW would be.

Saw is horror. Horror does not have to have a supernatural element. To say that it does is to create your own definition of it. Again, to prove my point, you need only look to the nearest video store. Not all Horror movies are supernatiural.

The dictionary defines horror is defined as the following.
hor·ror http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fhorror)
n.

An intense, painful feeling of repugnance and fear. See Synonyms at fear (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fear).
Intense dislike; abhorrence.
A cause of horror.A film needs cause the above to be horror.


Msconce... your Hero fest entry wasn't even considered a hero entry by a few people, because it had a ninja in it and you had to defend it, right? Why suffer the same fate because it's not so clear what the judges consider horror and what isn't.

So wait...just because the person saving lives is a ninja who gets his power from a supernatural headband...instead of a guy with a supernatural bone hand...he is not a hero??? I think that is absolutely ridiculous.

About the hero thing.

This is the definition from the dictionary on Hero...
he·ro http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fhero)
n. pl. he·roes

In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.
A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.My movie had a hero in it. If people are taking a different view than the established definition, that is their choice, but they have to understand they are being subjective based on what they want the definition to be, not on what it really is. If people did not see a guy who( saves someone from ninjas, fights the attackers (risking his own life), and has supernatural power from headband he puts on) as a hero... it because they are creating their own definition of it.

If the judges cannot see the vision I have, then I will not win. I am basing my definition of horror on the established, written definitions used in the industry.
Come on people! This will be more fun if we open up our minds and create tons of different takes on horror. Why pigeon hole the genre?

Kholi
06-23-2006, 03:16 PM
Sorry if I struck a nerve. I wasn't saying your Ninja movie didn't qualify last go around, just saying that it probably wasn't fun defending your reasonings because people don't consider Ninjas (for the most part) as Super Heroes.

Enter what you want. As long as you make something, I think that's the most important part.

Hell, yoou're fifty steps ahead of me... but this time I'll try even harder to kick one out.

DarkMatter
06-23-2006, 03:21 PM
The Gate rocks!

I used to own Trilogy of Terror on VHS when I was a kid. I vaguely remember the killer lawn gnome. Also there's a boob in the movie which is way cool for an eight year old boy.

If anyone here has seen Irreversible and Man Bites Dog and enjoyed them, then I recommend The Untold Story, Baise Moi, Guinea Pig, Salo, and Nekromantik as a few more films to check out. You won't find these titles at your neighborhood Blockbuster though!

EDIT: Holy crap! I can't believe I forgot to suggest Cannibal Holocaust!!! It is THE scariest and disturbing film you're likely to ever witness. Trust me.
I'll have to check those out.

DarkMatter
06-23-2006, 03:27 PM
spooky123, found all but Salo, does it run under a translated name? Also Kichiku Dai Enkai, is a really disturbing film, and just plain hard to watch.

Matt Sconce
06-23-2006, 03:30 PM
Sorry if I struck a nerve. I wasn't saying your Ninja movie didn't qualify last go around, just saying that it probably wasn't fun defending your reasonings because people don't consider Ninjas (for the most part) as Super Heroes.

Enter what you want. As long as you make something, I think that's the most important part.

Hell, yoou're fifty steps ahead of me... but this time I'll try even harder to kick one out.

The thing was...it didn't matter whether it was a ninja with a supernatural headband, a grandmother with a supernatural purse, or a child with supernatural baseball bat. The character was saving a life in a supernaturally based way. He was a legitimate hero. It is frustrating when people make a decision to judge someone down based on their own subjective definitions.

But this thread is about Horror fest. I believe it is very important to have a locked down definition this time. I really like Wikipedia's definition in my earlier post because it leaves us tons of room for creative interpretation. Will we have a locked down definition soon?

Kholi
06-23-2006, 03:35 PM
The thing was...it didn't matter whether it was a ninja with a supernatural headband, a grandmother with a supernatural purse, or a child with supernatural baseball bat. The character was saving a life in a supernaturally based way. He was a legitimate hero. It is frustrating when people make a decision to judge someone down based on their own subjective definitions.

But this thread is about Horror fest. I believe it is very important to have a locked down definition this time. I really like Wikipedia's definition in my earlier post because it leaves us tons of room for crwative interpretation. Will we have a locked down definition soon?

Don't go giving away my ideas! Child with a supernatural baseball bat... grrr. I wrote something like that back in middle school that I really still want to do.

Anyway--

That was my point. I don't want anyone to have to defend their own definition of horror in their threads. It happened more so with Hero Fest this go around...

I'm sure, however, that Land, Hudson, and Green will tell us to do what we feel and let the judges decide; so go for it.

Matt Sconce
06-23-2006, 03:39 PM
Don't go giving away my ideas! Child with a supernatural baseball bat... grrr. I wrote something like that back in middle school that I really still want to do.


Haha! I would pay to see that!

DarkMatter
06-23-2006, 08:36 PM
Don't go giving away my ideas! Child with a supernatural baseball bat... grrr. I wrote something like that back in middle school that I really still want to do.

It was called Paranoia Agent. Sorry, someone named Satoshi Kon beat you to it. (At least the story is similar).

Ben Sliker
06-24-2006, 08:10 AM
I agree, and I believe people are confused and telling people many different things. Everyone seems to have their own definition of horror, and is setting what entries are "Horror" based on mere opinions and likes and dislikes. Horror has a section at the local blockbuster. Go there and see what is classified as horror.

Saw is horror. Horror does not have to have a supernatural element. To say that it does is to create your own definition of it. Again, to prove my point, you need only look to the nearest video store. Not all Horror movies are supernatiural.



msconce, i think that you are looking to inappropriate sources to find a definition of horror. First, I would have failed a paper in college if i turned it in with wikipedia as a source, because anyone can edit it, it has no expertise on any subject. I agree with you that the films must cause the dictionary definition from horror, but the source must be a monster of some sort to qualify as horror. And lastly, i think it a poor choice to trust the morons at blockbuster to define horror for you. I would suggest reading the scholarly articles i noted in my original post on this thread.

And saw is a thriller.

Matthew B. Moore
06-24-2006, 08:46 AM
I agree with the idea that one shouldn't have to defend the genre once the project is complete. I'm glad this thread exhists.
One shouldn't have to defend their work, but at the same time there is a responcibility to the artist to deliver.
Hairs can be split right down to the atoms. I'm not going to give a damn how the genre is represented as long as it IS represented.

Saw can be a thriller, or a horror flick. You can have one or the other, but you can also have both. Saw is too graphic in the traditional horror sense not to be considered at least half horror.

Fear is thrilling. Fear is horrific. It's how you use it that sets them apart or pulls them together.

People, please, stop digging so deep. Use all of the wonderful elelements, but for the love of all that is holy, use them to make HORROR.

In judging, if the film is just masterbation, if will fall to the side. The films that will be considered realistically are the ones who filled the requirement. The one and only requirement.

If the film didn't scare me, or attempt to scare me, I will look for one that did.

Then, of course, one could say, "maybe it's not your type of horror film". To that I would have to say, "then you should have made it for a wider mass of people." That is, if you want to win.

Noah
06-24-2006, 08:54 AM
I just want to be completly clear since I am making this film mainly for this contest and don't want to go ahead with something that is not even eligable. Clearly it has to be horrifying to the audience and instill fear in some way, but is it necessary to have a supernatural aspect?

Matthew B. Moore
06-24-2006, 09:10 AM
Supernatural helps, but it's not the law. I've seen some good old life stuff that was plenty horrific enough. It didn't need any help from the other side.

Noah
06-24-2006, 09:16 AM
Sounds good, thanks for clearing this up.

Matt Sconce
06-24-2006, 10:35 AM
And saw is a thriller.

Saw includes horrific scenes and has a Monster in it (he is jigsaw). He is not supernatural, but that is not a requirement for horror. I agree with Matthew that Different people consider it to be a Thriller and others a Horror. What I am trying to say is if someone makes a movie like Saw for this contest, it would be a shame if people score it down because they do not believe it is horror. It "could" be classified as a horror movie.


msconce, i think that you are looking to inappropriate sources to find a definition of horror. First, I would have failed a paper in college if i turned it in with wikipedia as a source, because anyone can edit it, it has no expertise on any subject.

Of course wikipedia is not a scholarly article! I use it as a definition of horror that allows for creative freedom in this contest, not to write a thesis. I think the contest will be better for all if people are free to think outside the box of "gory monster flick".


And lastly, i think it a poor choice to trust the morons at blockbuster to define horror for you. I would suggest reading the scholarly articles i noted in my original post on this thread.

It is sad you broadly insult people who work at blockbuster. I do not, but I would never presume to classify them is morons simply for not sharing my beliefs in the categories movies should fall under.


I agree with you that the films must cause the dictionary definition from horror,

Then use the dictionary to define it.


but the source must be a monster of some sort to qualify as horror.
You say that it must include a monster to be considered horror, but I say that people can be the scariest monsters of them all.

Matt Sconce
06-24-2006, 10:35 AM
Supernatural helps, but it's not the law. I've seen some good old life stuff that was plenty horrific enough. It didn't need any help from the other side.

I absolutely agree! :)

Ben Sliker
06-24-2006, 02:46 PM
I feel like i'm repeating myself over and over again.

Humans are not monsters. period. Here is the quote again from carroll:

To be a monster, it must refer to “any being not believed to exist now according to contemporary science.” (27) and if that monster scares the bejesus out of you (aka being horrific), then bam ... horror. This definition has 2 simple qualifiers, i don't know how much more easy it can get.

A possesed human ... yes, a human that doesn't die ... yes. An old dude who terminally sick and setting up elaborate plots to hurt people ... no.

And I wasn't making fun of the employees at blockbuster, but their system, they have only a few categories there ... drama, comedy, action, maybe horror, maybe foreign. (oh ...and new releases which take up 90% of the store.)

I enjoy debates. :)

Kholi
06-24-2006, 03:27 PM
I'm in the boat with Hybrid, here.

If it's being made for contest, it should adhere to the contest's parameters.

The idea of free-thinking or... out-of-the-box is fine by me. But if you're doing this for the contest, you should A) Be within the topic given and B) Be aiming to win... meaning turning out the best possible six minutes or less that you can. (Like Spidey'd said in another locked thread.)

If people score you lower because you don't fit the genre, then well, take it with the grain of your choice.

And in regards to a monster blood-fest... I mentioned a few times that I"m moving toward PG/PG-13... that means a serious lack of gore and blood.

Oh, there will be monsters...

DarkMatter
06-24-2006, 03:28 PM
[QUOTE=hybridtheoryOh, btw, "monster" doesn't mean it has to have 8 tentacles and goo dripping from it's mouth. I would call Jack's charater in the Shining a monster, monsters can be humans, whatever, as long as they are not known to exist by current science. Which ... is a lot.[/QUOTE]

Sorry had to bring that up.:)

Matt Sconce
06-24-2006, 03:39 PM
Sorry had to bring that up.:)

Cool.


I feel like i'm repeating myself over and over again.

Humans are not monsters. period.


Completely disagree. Humans are the worst kind of monster. Horror films must inspire a sense of dread, fear, and terror, and can include the supernatural or not if they cause the previously mentioned emotions...Period.

Kholi
06-24-2006, 03:47 PM
Cool.



Completely disagree. Humans are the worst kind of monster. Horror films must inspire a sense of dread, fear, and terror, and can include the supernatural or not if they cause the previously mentioned emotions...Period.

Dude, just do what you feel you should do. If you feel that your story is a horror story, then move forward with it.

If you don't feel you need any supernatural presence, then just don't do it. Like I said before, was just trying to help so that no one had to defend their work.

spidey
06-24-2006, 08:25 PM
nuff said.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0450278/
http://imdb.com/title/tt0387564/
http://imdb.com/title/tt0087800/
http://imdb.com/title/tt0072271/

look horror isnt even one of the top "genres" for them but its still considered.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0368447/
http://imdb.com/title/tt0167404/

SO CASE CLOSED.

spooky138
06-25-2006, 03:27 AM
spooky123, found all but Salo, does it run under a translated name? Also Kichiku Dai Enkai, is a really disturbing film, and just plain hard to watch.
"Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom" is the full title. It was a Criterion collection release a few years back. It's out of print now but can be found at indie video stores, possibly your local library, and on Amazon. The official DVD is quite pricey since it's now a "collector's item" but you can find sellers on Amazon selling it for a lot cheaper (if your morals don't prohibit you from buying a bootleg) I went that route and bought it for fifty bucks rather than almost $1000 for an actual original copy. I figure, the director, Pier Paolo Pasolini was killed right after making the film, so I'm not screwing him out of any money due. The film is quite horrific, but not generally considered horror per-se. I recommend viewing it at least once to most people who are of a mature age. Hope you find it. Cheers!

spooky138
06-25-2006, 05:02 AM
Alright, I'll join in on this debate and hopefully offer an informed insight into this (whatever that means.) I consider myself a fan of the horror genre. I've been to horror movie conventions, I read horror genre magazines (Fangoria, Rue Morgue, etc), I wear horror related t-shirts, and am one of the myriad of twenty-something males nowadays who is out there shooting no budget / low budget horror flicks on a camcorder. (please cease the groans however warranted they may be).
Now, the debate between Thriller vs. Horror and especially the "Academic" definition stipulating a requirement for the supernatural to be considered Horror is a non-issue for me. The proof is in the films of the past. Anyone with a sincere interest in this issue should check out the Documentary "American Nightmare". That film does a wonderful job of dissecting the horror greats of the past and relating them, specifically, to societal issues and fears at the time.
The reason I called this a "non-issue" is because you cannot debate whether the following list of films is horror or thriller. They are Horror plain and simple. I'll even go so far as to state that these are some of the genre's best. Also, they all contain no elements of the supernatural, NOR are the antagonists inexplicable to modern science. Here we go:

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (go ahead and try arguing this as a thriller as opposed to all out horror on the Internet Movie Database IMDB.com All the flames you receive should tell you something )

HENRY:PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER

CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST (many consider this to be THE most horrifying film of all time. Granted the irresponsible filmmakers used actual animal killings in the movie, which puts a lot of people off, and at the time of its initial release, it was thought to be a SNUFF film and the producers/director were taken to court and had prove that the effects in the movie were fake and in fact were NOT real people being killed for the sake of the movie. Also, this film is the most widely banned movie in the history of cinema... being banned in nearly sixty countries. Nothing supernatural in this little gem. Just some innocent cannibal tribes in South America being terrorized by the white man.)

PSYCHO (Hitchcock, who is the master of the mystery/suspense and thriller genres, departed from his norm with this one and pretty much invented the modern horror film)

JAWS (Granted, the shark was a little large and its behavior was a bit uncharacteristic for the species, but it's still a normal animal found in the ocean and totally recognized as "real" by the scientific community)

FRIDAY THE 13TH (the antagonist in this flick is a grieving old mother who is easily killed at the end of the movie. Nothing supernatural here.)

These movies are just the tip of the iceberg, but I think that's enough to prove my point. All of these are irrefutably considered "Horror". In fact, one could argue that most of these are staples of the genre. I don't consider myself a "Thriller" fan. Being thrilled can be fun now and again, but I want to be Horrified!!!
After looking up a couple of other similar debates at Indietalk.com and a couple of other websites, everyone's general concensus seems to be that 1) there is no "industry standard" for categorizing a film as either horror or thriller. 2) The line between the aforementioned genres has been blurred beyond recognition. 3) Those arguing the need for a supernatural element in a horror film are hard pressed to justify their stance when given examples like I've provided above but usually end up changing the definition of "supernatural" to incorporate natural elements of said film examples. And lastly, 4) Many consider the term "horror" a dirty word. So a big motivator, at least in the film industry, for a distinction between horror and thriller is monetary in nature. If a big movie studio is looking to make piles of cash off their little horror movie, they might very well market it as a thriller in order to not put the highbrow types off.

... just my two cents.

Cheers,
Mikey

spidey
06-25-2006, 06:41 AM
ok so let me try to add another piece about the monsters. you dont have to have monster to be horror such as...

http://imdb.com/title/tt0097758/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095930/

so I dont even know why this is still going but the facts are there. thank you.

Ben Sliker
06-25-2006, 12:23 PM
moviestunts,
excuse me, i should have stated that monsters can't be exclusively human. period. As in a zombie would be part human, but still a monster.

spidey,
monsters alone don't constitute horror ... thanks for trying to "end" this convo. i actually enjoy hearing what others believe, it gives us all new perspective.

msconce,
we're just never going to see eye-to-eye on the human aspect. What i believe is that if a monster can't be known by science today, humans alone can't qualify, but someone who is intersticial, like again, a zombie, between dead and alive, can.

spooky138,
i would say that jason is a monster, because he keeps coming back, as for psycho, i would say that norman bates is no longer completely himself, therefore in between two people, also qualifying him as a monster. As for jaws, if you go back to my original post, i mentioned magnification, being much larger than a normal great white, also qualifying as a monster.

Kholi
06-25-2006, 12:31 PM
moviestunts,
excuse me, i should have stated that monsters can't be exclusively human. period. As in a zombie would be part human, but still a monster.

spidey,
monsters alone don't constitute horror ... thanks for trying to "end" this convo. i actually enjoy hearing what others believe, it gives us all new perspective.

msconce,
we're just never going to see eye-to-eye on the human aspect. What i believe is that if a monster can't be known by science today, humans alone can't qualify, but someone who is intersticial, like again, a zombie, between dead and alive, can.

spooky138,
i would say that jason is a monster, because he keeps coming back, as for psycho, i would say that norman bates is no longer completely himself, therefore in between two people, also qualifying him as a monster. As for jaws, if you go back to my original post, i mentioned magnification, being much larger than a normal great white, also qualifying as a monster.

You shouldn't try to argue it. Everyone's going to keep putting it off, anyway.

People want to make what they want to make, and that's fine. If forcing a definition validates their creation, hey, who are we to say otherwise?

Whatever you guys want to do, have at it. Can't wait to see what's turned out.

Matt Sconce
06-25-2006, 12:35 PM
Alright, I'll join in on this debate and hopefully offer an informed insight into this (whatever that means.) I consider myself a fan of the horror genre. I've been to horror movie conventions, I read horror genre magazines (Fangoria, Rue Morgue, etc), I wear horror related t-shirts, and am one of the myriad of twenty-something males nowadays who is out there shooting no budget / low budget horror flicks on a camcorder. (please cease the groans however warranted they may be).
Now, the debate between Thriller vs. Horror and especially the "Academic" definition stipulating a requirement for the supernatural to be considered Horror is a non-issue for me. The proof is in the films of the past. Anyone with a sincere interest in this issue should check out the Documentary "American Nightmare". That film does a wonderful job of dissecting the horror greats of the past and relating them, specifically, to societal issues and fears at the time.
The reason I called this a "non-issue" is because you cannot debate whether the following list of films is horror or thriller. They are Horror plain and simple. I'll even go so far as to state that these are some of the genre's best. Also, they all contain no elements of the supernatural, NOR are the antagonists inexplicable to modern science. Here we go:

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (go ahead and try arguing this as a thriller as opposed to all out horror on the Internet Movie Database IMDB.com All the flames you receive should tell you something )

HENRY:PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER

CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST (many consider this to be THE most horrifying film of all time. Granted the irresponsible filmmakers used actual animal killings in the movie, which puts a lot of people off, and at the time of its initial release, it was thought to be a SNUFF film and the producers/director were taken to court and had prove that the effects in the movie were fake and in fact were NOT real people being killed for the sake of the movie. Also, this film is the most widely banned movie in the history of cinema... being banned in nearly sixty countries. Nothing supernatural in this little gem. Just some innocent cannibal tribes in South America being terrorized by the white man.)

PSYCHO (Hitchcock, who is the master of the mystery/suspense and thriller genres, departed from his norm with this one and pretty much invented the modern horror film)

JAWS (Granted, the shark was a little large and its behavior was a bit uncharacteristic for the species, but it's still a normal animal found in the ocean and totally recognized as "real" by the scientific community)

FRIDAY THE 13TH (the antagonist in this flick is a grieving old mother who is easily killed at the end of the movie. Nothing supernatural here.)

These movies are just the tip of the iceberg, but I think that's enough to prove my point. All of these are irrefutably considered "Horror". In fact, one could argue that most of these are staples of the genre. I don't consider myself a "Thriller" fan. Being thrilled can be fun now and again, but I want to be Horrified!!!
After looking up a couple of other similar debates at Indietalk.com and a couple of other websites, everyone's general concensus seems to be that 1) there is no "industry standard" for categorizing a film as either horror or thriller. 2) The line between the aforementioned genres has been blurred beyond recognition. 3) Those arguing the need for a supernatural element in a horror film are hard pressed to justify their stance when given examples like I've provided above but usually end up changing the definition of "supernatural" to incorporate natural elements of said film examples. And lastly, 4) Many consider the term "horror" a dirty word. So a big motivator, at least in the film industry, for a distinction between horror and thriller is monetary in nature. If a big movie studio is looking to make piles of cash off their little horror movie, they might very well market it as a thriller in order to not put the highbrow types off.

... just my two cents.

Cheers,
Mikey

This is exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for making it understandable. These are some of the staples of the horror industry and I like horror movies like this. I hope some people make ones like this in the competition and that people accept them for the horror movies that they are.

Ben Sliker
06-25-2006, 12:37 PM
You shouldn't try to argue it. Everyone's going to keep putting it off, anyway.

People want to make what they want to make, and that's fine. If forcing a definition validates their creation, hey, who are we to say otherwise?

Whatever you guys want to do, have at it. Can't wait to see what's turned out.

word. just trying to clarify my own statements. I'd love to see like 70 films again, and i'd love for all of them to be horrific. I like the fact that this thread has brought so many opinions about horror.

spooky138
06-25-2006, 01:01 PM
moviestunts,
excuse me, i should have stated that monsters can't be exclusively human. period. As in a zombie would be part human, but still a monster.

spidey,
monsters alone don't constitute horror ... thanks for trying to "end" this convo. i actually enjoy hearing what others believe, it gives us all new perspective.

msconce,
we're just never going to see eye-to-eye on the human aspect. What i believe is that if a monster can't be known by science today, humans alone can't qualify, but someone who is intersticial, like again, a zombie, between dead and alive, can.

spooky138,
i would say that jason is a monster, because he keeps coming back, as for psycho, i would say that norman bates is no longer completely himself, therefore in between two people, also qualifying him as a monster. As for jaws, if you go back to my original post, i mentioned magnification, being much larger than a normal great white, also qualifying as a monster.
hybrid,
just a quick retort to your reply to me:

First off, I mentioned Friday the 13th not its subsequent sequels. Aside from a quick appearance as a boy, Jason is not the antagonist in this movie... his grieving mother is and she's absolutely a plain ol' human being.

You referred to magnification in relation to the shark in Jaws'. However, it is never conclusively answered whether or not the shark is an abnormally large Great White, or rather a perfectly normal sized specimen of the Carcharadon Megaladon breed. Fossil teeth show this grandfather of the present-day great white to have been as long as a couple full size busses and the possibility exists that this creature is still alive and kicking in the present day roaming the expanses of the deep blue oceans.

But, alas, I really am enjoying this debate. And I certainly can't wait to see everyone's films when all is said and done!

goriddle
06-27-2006, 05:56 PM
I'm not up to sifting through this entire conversation to see if anyone has touched on what I am about to say, but one of the common themes in horror is that the central character is a victim rather than a hero. There are plenty stories where this isn't true and I'd be interested to hear them, but in all honesty what I look for in horror is cool monsters... speaking of which, does anyone have any screen grabs of monster movies made on dvxs?

goriddle
06-29-2006, 01:19 PM
oh ya, one more thing regarding whether monsters can be humans- someone said that humans are the worst types of monsters. In not as many words, this reminded me of Vincent Price's Monologue at the end of "Monster Club", which is a brilliant movie.

Ralph Oshiro
07-08-2006, 04:58 AM
Just my dumb-ass $0.04 . . .

Well, once again, I'm struggling to fit another genre into the contest-defined genre. I don't like supernatural movies or ghost stories--I like more realistic movies (The Ring, White Noise, and Dark Water-type movies just seem silly to me). So I keep ending up with more "thriller" plot ideas instead of "horror" plot ideas. I think Saw was an excellent horror film, one of the best of the genre. But it was far more clever than I can hope to be on this contest--so scratch that. Monsters are too hard to pull off credibly, so I won't touch that one either. Disgusting gore and terror (e.g., Texas Chainsaw Massacre) are also difficult to pull off credibly--it's hard to make your bad guys scary-weird enough. So how do I make my protagonist more "horrified?" I'm not sure. I may have to go the psychological route, I think. Again, challenging from a writing standpoint, but I think that's the only direction I may have a shot at pulling off.

Kholi
07-10-2006, 04:52 PM
Don't worry about it--

You won't be the only one submitting a thriller. Honestly? It's whatever... I guess whatever scares ya is horror.

That seems to be the agreement amongst those entering.

Ben Sliker
07-12-2006, 02:01 PM
yeah, that and yours will look really cool with that spiffy camera of yours ... but who says you get to have $0.04??? lol.

patrickj
07-14-2006, 07:44 PM
Just my dumb-ass $0.04 . . .

Well, once again, I'm struggling to fit another genre into the contest-defined genre. I don't like supernatural movies or ghost stories--I like more realistic movies (The Ring, White Noise, and Dark Water-type movies just seem silly to me). So I keep ending up with more "thriller" plot ideas instead of "horror" plot ideas. I think Saw was an excellent horror film, one of the best of the genre. But it was far more clever than I can hope to be on this contest--so scratch that. Monsters are too hard to pull off credibly, so I won't touch that one either. Disgusting gore and terror (e.g., Texas Chainsaw Massacre) are also difficult to pull off credibly--it's hard to make your bad guys scary-weird enough. So how do I make my protagonist more "horrified?" I'm not sure. I may have to go the psychological route, I think. Again, challenging from a writing standpoint, but I think that's the only direction I may have a shot at pulling off.

I'm with you. Definitely going for a more terror/thriller feel. I've never been a big monster movie fan - definitely more into the realistic scares (Blair Witch scared the crap outta me).

griffin
07-29-2006, 03:30 PM
I think Horror is: If I were in this situation, would I be horrified/scared? If it's a yes, then I view it as horror.

So if a 3 headed dog shooting fireballs out of his mouth was 20 feet from me, i'd consider it horror.

If i was getting chased by 3 gun toting fellas that wanted me dead, i'd be horrified.

Probaly not the best examples or definition of horror but that's how I view it.

poopnoodle
08-21-2006, 10:20 PM
personally i think horror can fit into 3 catagories:

1. the monster movie (zombies and the like, where the costume sells it)

2. suspense and the supernatural (a plot where the monster or ghost's scariness is built through suspense of the situation and the setting (the monster could be a shadow the whole time, or even an offscreen noise).

3. the antagonist could be an intangable thing like an irrational childhood fear or something, which is begrugingly overcome, or it destroys them.

so thats how i'm going about things, and i think that a movie like alien constituts horror because it uses 1 and 2 (mostly 2), to keep you on the edge of your seat.

-brad

Mr. E. Trane
08-24-2006, 02:30 PM
According to Wikipedia: “In film, the horror genre is characterized by the attempt to make the viewer experience fright, fear, terror, disgust or horror.”

The great thing about this definition is that it relies on the intent of the filmmaker. A film is not classified as horror by whether or not it scared you. It is classified by whether or not the filmmaker intended to scare you.

The horror genre is a broad one. It includes many subgenres and cross-genres. By adding “disgust” this definition covers the subgenre of gore for example. Gore films may or may not cause fear, but they almost certainly disgust. A thriller that employs suspense with the intent to cause fear and disgust in the audience (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) would by this definition also be a horror film. A sci-fi film whose intent is to frighten and disgust the audience (Alien) is also a horror film.

My top 5:

The Exorcist (1973)
The Shining (1980)
The Horror of Dracula (1958)
The Omen (1976)
White Zombie (1932)

Kholi
08-24-2006, 04:51 PM
Funny thing is, after all this debate, I decided to go against my intentional plan--

And now I'm going through with something totally left-wing. But, it should be horror, right?

If Thriller can be Horror than I'm fine.

MOVIE MASTER
08-25-2006, 07:16 PM
The Candy Gram Thing Is Wierd

MOVIE MASTER
08-29-2006, 08:47 PM
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/18202/1156909372.jpg

Kholi
08-29-2006, 08:48 PM
Lmfao. Straight pimping it.

GenJerDan
08-30-2006, 01:27 AM
Anyone mention fairy tales? I think most could fit the horror category. Yes? No?

Bogdan
08-31-2006, 01:24 PM
If the character(s) know(s) something's coming, then it's a horror.

If the character(s) do/does not know(s) something's coming, then it's a thriller or some other stuff.

If filmmaker mixes both in one movie, then I don't know what to say :)