What is "Horror"?

Matthew B. Moore said:
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.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree! :)
 
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. :)
 
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...
 
MOVIE STUNTS said:
Sorry had to bring that up.:)
Click to expand...

Cool.

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

Humans are not monsters. period.
Click to expand...

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.
 
msconce said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MOVIE STUNTS said:
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.
Click to expand...
"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!
 
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
 
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.
 
hybridtheory said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
spooky138 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kholi said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
hybridtheory said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
yeah, that and yours will look really cool with that spiffy camera of yours ... but who says you get to have $0.04??? lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top