Four Best Horror Films

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Title of ChibiHorseWoman's Post[/i]
I'm going to skip the Blair Witch[/QUOTE]
But [i]why[/i]? Why would you [i]ever[/i] want to not talk about Blair Witch? It's a fantastic horror film that accomplishes far more than the majority of the slasher/gore-fest/"jump out and scare you" film ever has.

Now, my all-time four greatest horror films?

Obviously, the original [b]Night of the Living Dead[/b] is on there. It's a movie that, while cheesy and gory, serves a very effective psychological assault. I've heard people speak of the social commentary of the film, the racism and so forth, but I don't view NotLD as a social commentary involving racism so much as...social commentary concentrated on distrust of humanity. This distrust is formed out of duress and very intense psychological strain. These people are being put through hell, and their primary concern is survival. Sometimes, this desire for survival leads to violence within the group. Because of this lack of cohesion, [spoiler]everyone dies[/spoiler]. It's an interesting message, really. When presented with the requirement to work together, do so. Failure to do so will result in very serious consequences. It's a neat film, to say the least.

[b]John Carpenter's The Thing[/b] also plays a variation on this idea. Where The Thing differs from NotLD, however, is that the characters work together for the most part. They are always able to reconcile the argument, whether through human mediation or...otherworldly interference. It's interesting, because the humans are able to work together because [spoiler]the Thing is an amalgation of different organisms that all fight for their own survival[/spoiler]. The Thing is really a shadow of the humans. It is the manifestation of their darkest desires. This is actually a literal facet of the film, considering the fact that [spoiler]the Thing physically copies various lifeforms[/spoiler]. In this respect, The Thing is a mirror of the human condition.

Also, the original The Thing had a heavy Red Scare paranoia, fear of nuclear power, etc, in keeping with the 50s political/social/economic climate. In the early 80s, however, that climate became more of we were unsure of who we could trust. With WaterGate of the late 70s, and the various factions fighting each other in Central/South America, the majority of the public was unsure of who the real enemy was. We had no idea if the threat was truly foreign, or if there was a domestic danger. This attitude is reflected in Carpenter's The Thing, with the hidden killer idea.

Fantastic cinema.

That's only two right now. I'll Edit the other two in later.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Horror films... hmmm... I haven't seen too many because in general they really suck... but I'll try to come up with four. I haven't seen The Ring, I didn't like Blair Witch, and stuff like 13 Ghosts and 28 Days Later and Ghost Ship are just ridiculously horrible. Anyway...

Ugh. I'm just gonna say the 4 Alien films. I don't know if they should count as horror as much as they do sci-fi, but they have monsters killing people, so I figure they're sorta like Jeepers Creepers x 10000000. Except for Alien 3; that one was pretty lousy. Alien Resurrection had a bad story, but that alien/human hybrid at the end was really unnerving to look at.

I know most people will be all like "hey dude the Alien quadrilogy is not horror it's freaking sci-fi" and what not, but think of it this way: if all the characters in the Alien films were complete retards and got [i]themselves[/i] killed by doing something stupid, then it would totally fit the typical horror film formula of "morons killed by mysterious monster." So I figure it's close enough.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]Ugh. I'm just gonna say the 4 Alien films. I don't know if they should count as horror as much as they do sci-fi, but they have monsters killing people, so I figure they're sorta like Jeepers Creepers x 10000000. Except for Alien 3; that one was pretty lousy. Alien Resurrection had a bad story, but that alien/human hybrid at the end was really unnerving to look at.

I know most people will be all like "hey dude the Alien quadrilogy is not horror it's freaking sci-fi" and what not, but think of it this way: if all the characters in the Alien films were complete retards and got [i]themselves[/i] killed by doing something stupid, then it would totally fit the typical horror film formula of "morons killed by mysterious monster." So I figure it's close enough.[/QUOTE]
Quick reply. Not really, no. The Alien series, while incorporating definite horror themes--actually, scratch that. Alien was the only film in the series to feature any "horror" in it. Even then, it's not "horror" in the same sense of typical horror. It's more...stalker horror, like Hitchcock. Actually, Alien has been called Hitchcock In Space. So, it's not conventional horror at all.

Aliens is a combat picture. Cameron has been interviewed and said that. He based the premise/idea/execution off of Vietnam pictures, films like Platoon. So, Aliens is not horror by far.

Alien 3 attempted to connect back with the Hitchcockian feel of the original, but ultimately fell to the conventional horror cliches that Alien avoided so well.

Resurrection tried to be a combat picture, but at that point in the series, there was nothing left.

And your point about the "stupid characters getting killed" is a bit far-fetched, considering there are maybe two characters in the Quadrilogy that demonstrate that behavior. Also, those two characters, Brett and Burke, do not demonstrate the stupidity of the conventional horror cliche character. Brett is simply looking for Ripley's cat (he dies when looking for her *****...hmmm...perhaps that sexuality argument holds even more strength than we thought?). He isn't running into a dark wood to investigate a strange noise, nor is he just blindly running about in some vain attempt to get away from the killer.

Burke is trying to escape, to find an exit. But this is not his fault, as he has no knowledge at all of the colony's layout. He would be at fault if he knew the architecture and had extensive knowledge of the colony's design, and thus would be the stupid cliche character.

And to categorize the entire Quadrilogy as "horror" based on two characters is wholly ill-advised.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Petey]Alien was the only film in the series to feature any "horror" in it. Even then, it's not "horror" in the same sense of typical horror.
Aliens is a combat picture. Cameron has been interviewed and said that. He based the premise/idea/execution off of Vietnam pictures, films like Platoon. So, Aliens is not horror by far.Alien 3 attempted to connect back with the Hitchcockian feel of the original, but ultimately fell to the conventional horror cliches that Alien avoided so well.Resurrection tried to be a combat picture, but at that point in the series, there was nothing left.

And your point about the "stupid characters getting killed" is a bit far-fetched, considering there are maybe two characters in the Quadrilogy that demonstrate that behavior. ... And to categorize the entire Quadrilogy as "horror" based on two characters is wholly ill-advised.[/QUOTE]

I know it's not really horror. Stuff like Halloween and what not--that's horror. But I hate that stuff, and so I can't bring myself to list 4 of those movies as my favorite horror films. I said the Alien movies weren't really horror, but again, since some of them are horror-ish, for me that's close enough. (Basically of the films I care at all for, they're as close to horror as it gets.)

And that thing about stupid characters getting killed, I think you misread my post. I didn't say any characters did that in the Alien films. I'm saying that [i]if there were stupid characters who got themselves killed[/i], then it'd be closer to the typical horror film formula. That's all.

[James]

[color=#707875]One of the things that makes this thread difficult is the definition of "horror film".

For example, a lot of "scary" movies would be classified as "thriller" films, perhaps. It seems to me that there are a lot of sub-genres and different interpretations on that point.

If we were to talk specifically about those slasher-type horror films, or the zombie ones, or the ones that you would typically regard as "horror"...I'd definitely have a tough time choosing a favourite. I would say that just about every film I've seen that fits into the above category is incredibly cheesy and simplistic.

I really love the Silence of the Lambs trilogy...all three movies are fantastic. Beautifully cerebral dialogue, too. But not specifically "horror", I guess.

ChibiHorseWoman actually mentioned a movie that I'd forgotten; The Birds. That's one of my all-time favourite movies. And it's definitely a classic film in every respect.[/color]

[Brasil]

James, you beat me to the punch, heh.

Sciros,

[QUOTE]I know it's not really horror. Stuff like Halloween and what not--that's horror. But I hate that stuff, and so I can't bring myself to list 4 of those movies as my favorite horror films.[/quote]I hardly think it's appropriate to classify Halloween and its sub-genre as "horror." If anything, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc, are "slasher flicks," movies designed to provide little more than shock value and that's it. I'm actually inclined to write them off as mindless killing. I see them as simply an excuse to get one's arm around one's girlfriend in a darkened theatre.

Because Halloween does not really respect the audience--that style, if it can be called that, is essentially saying, "Okay, this is all we're trusting you with, because we figure this is all you're capable of understanding."

Really, saying Halloween is "horror" is just using the umbrella description, I think, that one finds in a Hollywood Video or Blockbuster, or various other rental places. Lumping everything (everything encompassing American Werewolf in London, Halloween, etc) together is really just the [i]easiest[/i] way to do it, not necessarily the [i]right[/i] way to do it.

Cases in point:

28 Days Later and the Resident Evil movie. Both are certainly going to scare particular audiences, but 28 Days Later is more of a mature take on the idea of the living dead. RE, however, has the comic book mentality found in Freddy, Jason, etc. You can find both 28 Days Later and RE in roughly the same section in most movie rental places, but that doesn't mean they are the same, or belong to the same genre or even sub-genre. 28 Days Later was clearly the superior film, too, because of its tone and attitude toward the subject matter. While it may not have been superior in the technical sense in that it didn't give us gun-running and over-extending explosions to the same extent that RE does, or any other comic book-ish scary movie, it was superior in the aesthetic sense. It's really remarkable when you look at it. The effort that the filmmakers put into making 28 Days Later truly stand-out in a tired market. It's very commendable.

Scary Movie and Scream. Now, I'm not too fond of either of these movies because they rely so heavily on the Freddy/Jason/Mike Myers material. Scream is a self-mocking slasher flick. It's more or less a modernized Friday the 13th. Not to say it's a bad take on its sub-genre, but it certainly can't define what "horror" is, nor can Halloween.

Even though the next two films don't belong to the "Fright" genre, I still think they are worth mentioning.

Blazing Saddles and Freddy Got Fingered. Both are pretty crass, but there's a maturity to Blazing Saddles, an almost respectible tone to the source material. Freddy Got Fingered, however, is barely viewable. Really, Freddy Got Fingered has the gross-out style and disrespect of the audience possessed by the slasher flicks. They may be listed as comedies, but there is a definite distinction between them and to the discerning eye, they are nowhere near the same genre.

[QUOTE]I said the Alien movies weren't really horror, but again, since some of them are horror-ish, for me that's close enough. (Basically of the films I care at all for, they're as close to horror as it gets.)[/QUOTE]Not so. John Carpenter's The Thing, Night of the Living Dead, The Ring, Blair Witch, Nosferatu, American Werewolf In London, Shadow of the Vampire are all very worthwhile mature films that adhere to the principles set forth by classic and mature horror films. They are what horror should be, and put the teen slasher flick to shame.

[quote]And that thing about stupid characters getting killed, I think you misread my post. I didn't say any characters did that in the Alien films. I'm saying that [i]if there were stupid characters who got themselves killed[/i], then it'd be closer to the typical horror film formula. That's all.[/QUOTE]I'll debunk this later. I've got some lawnwork to do, but remember, the typical horror film formula is not what true horror is. That formula is based off of slasher flicks...thrillers, like James has said. Films that base their progression on plot points and not character development. They're not horror at all. They're cookiecutter cinema, lol.

To tell you the truth, I don't hold the slasher flicks to have any standing in the umbrella genre of "horror, and it's unwise to think the slasher flicks are representational of the true nature and quality of the umbrella genre. They're mass-market, mass-produced, not the norm. They really hold absolutely no standing in the eye of the serious film critic, and that discerning film critic does not believe the slasher flick to be the standard. The slasher flick is only the standard when we look at the audience. That's it. And from our extensive theatre experience, we know that audience isn't too "with it" when it comes to [i]good[/i] taste, true?

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Petey']I hardly think it's appropriate to classify Halloween and its sub-genre as "horror." If anything, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc, are "slasher flicks."[/quote]

Horror as I see it is not a subcategory on the level of "slasher flicks." To me "slasher flicks" fall [i]under[/i] horror.

[QUOTE]Not so. John Carpenter's The Thing, Night of the Living Dead, The Ring, Blair Witch are all very worthwhile mature films that adhere to the principles set forth by classic and mature horror films. They are what horror should be, and put the teen slasher flick to shame.[/QUOTE]

You said this in reply to my saying that of the films [i]I[/i] care for, the Alien films are as close to horror as it gets. And that [i]is[/i] so. I don't like The Thing, Night of the Living Dead, or Blair Witch. I haven't seen The Ring.

[QUOTE]I'll debunk this later. I've got some lawnwork to do, but remember, the typical horror film formula is not what true horror is. That formula is based off of slasher flicks...thrillers, like James has said. Films that base their progression on plot points and not character development. They're not horror at all. They're cookiecutter cinema, lol.[/QUOTE]

For goodness's sake don't bother. I don't care if you think that "the typical horror film formula is not what true horror is," because all these categorizations are BS anyway. One can't have a universally proper form of categorization for films. I'm sure your "horror" category is not the same as mine, just like my "adventure" category is not the same as yours. It doesn't matter. Also, in reality I categorize films much more simply--I don't watch "slasher" or "true horror" films. I watch "scary movies." I really don't like to categorize films too much anyway, because it leads to weird crap. Like I said that Alien films are sci-fi. Well, they are, but sci-fi should have categories like action and horror in it, as well. And if Aliens falls under sci-fi action, would someone be wrong to call it an action film and leave out the "sci-fi"? Well, again, it all depends on how you look at it. Films like Brotherhood of the Wolf I can't categorize at all. And since there's no real authority on the matter, don't critique my categorizations. You can offer yours, if you like.

Just for fun, here are the top 4 (as chosen by visitors) HORROR films on IMDB:
1. Psycho (haven't seen it)
2. Silence of the Lambs (haven't seen it)
3. Alien (hehehe)
4. Jaws (I forgot about this one it's not bad)

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Horror as I see it is not a subcategory on the level of "slasher flicks." [b]To me "slasher flicks" fall [i]under[/i] horror[/b']. [/quote]You missed my point entirely (and missed James' point, as well). I said the exact same thing as you just did in your rebuttal. Perhaps because you concentrated solely on two sentences out of the three paragraph point, let's take a look at my point again, shall we?

[QUOTE]I hardly think it's appropriate to classify [b]Halloween and its sub-genre[/b] as "horror." If anything, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc, are "slasher flicks," movies designed to provide little more than shock value and that's it. I'm actually inclined to write them off as mindless killing. I see them as simply an excuse to get one's arm around one's girlfriend in a darkened theatre.

Because Halloween does not really respect the audience--that style, if it can be called that, is essentially saying, "Okay, this is all we're trusting you with, because we figure this is all you're capable of understanding."

[b]Really, saying Halloween is "horror" is just using the umbrella description[/b], I think, that one finds in a Hollywood Video or Blockbuster, or various other rental places. Lumping everything (everything encompassing American Werewolf in London, Halloween, etc) together is really just the [i]easiest[/i] way to do it, not necessarily the [i]right[/i] way to do it.[/QUOTE]1) Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear with "Halloween and its sub-genre." The meaning of that phrase is "Halloween and the sub-genre in which it belongs." It's not that hard to understand, lol.

2) Sciros, is that clearer now? Halloween and its sub-genre ("slasher flicks") are only a sub-genre of the umbrella genre term of "Horror." I honestly don't see what's so hard about this.

[QUOTE]You said this in reply to my saying that of the films [i]I[/i] care for, the Alien films are as close to horror as it gets. And that [i]is[/i] so. I don't like The Thing, Night of the Living Dead, or Blair Witch. I haven't seen The Ring.[/QUOTE]And I included those films to show that there are other films out there on the same level as Alien. While Alien is a fantastic pseudo-horror/sci-fi hybrid, The Thing should not be disregarded, nor should Night of the Living Dead. To dislike an outstanding film is fine and all, but at least acknowledge that there is worthwhile material in said film. To automatically write-off The Thing just because you dislike it is an injustice to what the film accomplishes, and the messages and ideologies it holds. If you don't believe me when I tell you The Thing has a brain behind it, check out my review of it on the previous page. It's a rather well-conceived piece of cinema, and hardly deserves to be ignored by someone simply because they don't like it.

[quote][b]1) For goodness's sake don't bother[/b]. [b]2) I don't care if you think that "the typical horror film formula is not what true horror is," because all these categorizations are BS anyway[/b]. One can't have a universally proper form of categorization for films. I'm sure your "horror" category is not the same as mine, just like my "adventure" category is not the same as yours. [b]3) It doesn't matter. Also, in reality I categorize films much more simply--I don't watch "slasher" or "true horror" films. I watch "scary movies."[/b] I really don't like to categorize films too much anyway, because it leads to weird crap. [b]4) Like I said that Alien films are sci-fi. Well, they are, but sci-fi should have categories like action and horror in it, as well.[/b] And if Aliens falls under sci-fi action, would someone be wrong to call it an action film and leave out the "sci-fi"? Well, again, it all depends on how you look at it. [b]5) Films like Brotherhood of the Wolf I can't categorize at all.[/b] [b]6) And since there's no real authority on the matter, don't critique my categorizations.[/b] You can offer yours, if you like.[/QUOTE]1) Now where would be the fun in that?

2) You don't care about much to begin with when it doesn't agree with you, now do you? And if the categorizations are BS anyway, and thus don't matter, why would anyone here be having any discussion about the categories to begin with? Answer (See next point):

3) It does matter, and here's why. To be able to appropriately look at the genre as a whole, you need to be able to successfully differentiate between the sub-genres. The umbrella genre of horror is not the only distinction around. There are no "black and white" distinctions when it comes to entertainment, and this affects the umbrella genre of horror. "Slasher flicks" are nowhere near what Hitchcock was doing with Vertigo. Alien is entirely different from Friday the 13th. The particulars of the genre, also called sub-genres, are extremely important to know of when talking about [i]any[/i] umbrella genre.

4) The Sci-Fi umbrella genre [i]does[/i] have those distinctions already. I don't know what you're basing your point on, but just take a look at the industry right now. There are many different sub-genres available.

5) While Brotherhood of the Wolf was a very trippy film, try...myth/spiritual. I think the themes, imagery, and tone will fit nicely there. :)

6) I'll critique whatever I want, man. You're not safe from someone disagreeing with you. You are not entitled to any special treatment. If I disagree with you, I'm going to speak my mind. It'd suit you well to chill out and not take things so personally.

EDIT:

[QUOTE]Just for fun, here are the top 4 (as chosen by visitors) HORROR films on IMDB:
1. Psycho (haven't seen it)
2. Silence of the Lambs (haven't seen it)
3. Alien (hehehe)
4. Jaws (I forgot about this one it's not bad)[/QUOTE]Do you see anything remotely resembling "slasher flicks" in that list? You haven't seen Psycho? Haven't seen Silence of the Lambs? What are you doing in this thread again?

EDIT 2:

Furthermore, why not just include the entire list?

[url="http://www.imdb.com/chart/horror"]http://www.imdb.com/chart/horror[/url]

I think you'll find the majority of films there are classic cinema, and John Carpenter's The Thing is at #22, which is a very comfortable and commendable spot, considering just how many films are included in the "Horror" umbrella genre. Also, make note of the high-ranking appearances of The Shining, King Kong (1933), Nosferatu (1922), Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), Frankenstein (1931), The Exorcist, and The Birds. Come to think of it, it looks like there are no "teen slasher flicks" anywhere in the Top 25. That might tell you something about the state of the genre?

EDIT 3:

Just a quick afterthought, too.

[url="http://www.imdb.com/chart/scifi"]http://www.imdb.com/chart/scifi[/url]

It's a very nice selection in the Top 25 there.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]What constitutes a horror film for me is something that makes me jump, scatter my popcorn, and leave nail marks in my husband's arm. Okay, so I can't really say that for The chocolate Factory since I saw that in 3rd grade after the teacher had us read the book, but some things are suspensful to some and aren't to others.

Two more I would like to add to my list are:

[b]PhoneBooth[/b]-Yes, it may not be a suspense/horror/ ect ect film to some people. Infact it's rather odd in some ways since the guy is in [spoiler]a phonebooth for the whole movie while a sniper sits on a rooftop and threatens him and all by-standers[/spoiler] But in some ways it's suspensful since the whole movie revolves around some guy who just happened to pick up a payphone at the wrong time and a gun man. Who's to say it could never happen?

[b]Final Destination[/b]-An ex of mine who was rather cheap actually agreed to take me out and pay for a movie so I accepted how was I to know? He didn't give me a choice, just took advantage of the fact I get scared easily. But enough of adventures in dating hell.... This movie was pretty decent from the get go. [spoiler]Main character gets on a plane, falls asleep and has this straneg dream that the plane explodes. This wakes him up, freaks him out and he tries to get off the plane. His friend is freaked, follows him along with a few other people. Everyone makes a scene, Airport security comes, and questions teh guy. Plane takes off and explodes.[/spoiler] Here's the plot: Since they cheated death, death decides to get back at them. [spoiler]one by one the people who got off the plane start to die in nasty ways. I think the worst was the episode with the hanger[/spoiler] All in all, very good horror and suspense.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Petey you said that I was wrong to argue with you, saying that "slasher flicks fall under horror," but according to what you had posted, that WAS disagreeing with you:
[quote name='Petey']I hardly think it's appropriate to classify Halloween and its sub-genre as "horror." If anything, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc, are "slasher flicks"...[/quote]
You do realize that you discerned between "horror" and "slasher flicks" there, don't you? Which would imply that one is not a subset of the other. That's why I said what I said in reply.

But moving on,
[QUOTE]To automatically write-off The Thing just because you dislike it is an injustice to what the film accomplishes, and the messages and ideologies it holds. If you don't believe me when I tell you The Thing has a brain behind it, check out my review of it on the previous page. It's a rather well-conceived piece of cinema, and hardly deserves to be ignored by someone simply because they don't like it.[/QUOTE]
You see, I listed the 4 films I liked. I don't care who considers them "the best" or "good" or whatever. As fas as The Thing goes, if I don't like it why should I feel that it deserves some sort of recognition? Why should I suddenly hold someone else's opinion above my own? Wouldn't that mean that I disagree with myself? Anyway, if I dislike a film then to me it's worth ignoring, regardless of whatever good qualities it has.

[QUOTE]To be able to appropriately look at the genre as a whole, you need to be able to successfully differentiate between the sub-genres. The umbrella genre of horror is not the only distinction around. There are no "black and white" distinctions when it comes to entertainment, and this affects the umbrella genre of horror. "Slasher flicks" are nowhere near what Hitchcock was doing with Vertigo. Alien is entirely different from Friday the 13th. The particulars of the genre, also called sub-genres, are extremely important to know of when talking about any umbrella genre.[/QUOTE]
For different people, the subgenres differ. Same goes for entire genres. I, for one, don't consider the Star Wars films to be science fiction, because I found pretty much no science in them at all. Like you said, there are no "black and white" distinctions when it comes to entertainment. So I'd say that while understanding what sub-genres may exist is important, I can't say that there's necessarily a right and a wrong way to categorize many films according to those sub-genres. And likewise the different sub-genres that exist for an "umbrella genre" may differ depending on whom you ask. My point is, until there's some international standard on classifying movies, as long as you have a reason to put a movie in a genre and it makes sense to you, go ahead and do it. You're not hurting anybody.

[QUOTE]I'll critique whatever I want, man. You're not safe from someone disagreeing with you. You are not entitled to any special treatment. If I disagree with you, I'm going to speak my mind. It'd suit you well to chill out and not take things so personally.[/QUOTE]
Don't be a fool. I told you not to critique my categorizations because you're not an authority on the matter and actually neither is anybody. I don't even consider IMDB to be the "go to" guys for film genres. So to me your criticism of my categorization is worth nil. That's why I told you not to bother. You can disagree with me, but that's all you're doing. You're never [i]correcting[/i] me. Let's be clear on that.

[QUOTE]Do you see anything remotely resembling "slasher flicks" in that list? You haven't seen Psycho? Haven't seen Silence of the Lambs? What are you doing in this thread again?...Furthermore, why not just include the entire list?[/QUOTE]
I only included the top 4 because this thread is titled "four best horror films." And no, I haven't seen Psycho and Silence of the Lambs. That might be why I named the Alien films as my favorite horror films. I'm not really into the horror genre. As for what I'm doing in this thread? That's a good question. The answer: I'm wasting my time.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Petey you said that I was wrong to argue with you, saying that "slasher flicks fall under horror," but according to what you had posted, that WAS disagreeing with you:[/quote]
No, Sciros, you missed my point entirely. I've said that to define the genre, "horror," solely based upon the "slasher flick" is incorrect. The "slasher flick" is a sub-genre, not representational of the whole. I don't know how more bluntly I can put it, man. If you still can't get it now, then you never will.

[QUOTE]You do realize that you discerned between "horror" and "slasher flicks" there, don't you? Which would imply that one is not a subset of the other. That's why I said what I said in reply.[/QUOTE]
I discerned between "horror" and "slasher flicks" because you were defining the [i]entire[/i] horror umbrella genre in accordance to "slasher flicks." That is inappropriate. True horror, the essence of horror, is not teeny slasher. Sciros, I don't know what in the world you're basing your replies on, but you're not basing them on any real understanding of my points here. I mean, honestly, dude. Would it hurt you terribly to actually think about what I'm saying here? Instead of concentrating on a misinterpretation of a post and then going off on some...self-righteous and rambly tirade, actually [i]read[/i] the post and at least attempt to understand what I'm saying, okay?

Again, I'll restate my point as bluntly as humanly possible, just so there is no future misunderstanding on your part:

Slasher flicks do not solely define the umbrella genre of horror. They are not suitable source material on which to draw one's definition of horror.

[QUOTE]But moving on,[/QUOTE]
I honestly think you should just walk away, dude.

[QUOTE]You see, I listed the 4 films I liked. I don't care who considers them "the best" or "good" or whatever. [b]As fas as The Thing goes, if I don't like it why should I feel that it deserves some sort of recognition? Why should I suddenly hold someone else's opinion above my own?[/b] Wouldn't that mean that I disagree with myself? [b]Anyway, if I dislike a film then to me it's worth ignoring, regardless of whatever good qualities it has[/b].[/QUOTE]
1) Again, you missed my point. I'm not saying you have to like it, I'm not saying you have to love it. I'm saying that even though you dislike it, at least appreciate what the film does. At least admire what Carpenter was doing. You don't have to like it, and I never implied that you had to suddenly love everything that John Carpenter has ever done, and it's not even taking someone else's opinion and holding it over your own, lol. It's simply being a level-headed, mature, and reasonable filmgoer.

2) And you wonder why I have called you ignorant in the past? Sciros, when someone calls you ignorant, there's a strong basis of observation for it.

[QUOTE]For different people, the subgenres differ. Same goes for entire genres. I, for one, [b]don't consider the Star Wars films to be science fiction, because I found pretty much no science in them at all.[/b] Like you said, there are no "black and white" distinctions when it comes to entertainment. So I'd say that while understanding what sub-genres may exist is important, [b]I can't say that there's necessarily a right and a wrong way to categorize many films according to those sub-genres[/b]. And likewise the different sub-genres that exist for an "umbrella genre" may differ depending on whom you ask. My point is, until there's some international standard on classifying movies, [b]as long as you have a reason to put a movie in a genre and it makes sense to you, go ahead and do it. You're not hurting anybody.[/b][/QUOTE]
1) I suppose then, Death Star means nothing? Jumping through hyperspace? What about protocol droids that have the capacity for speech and can translate up to four billion different languages? While Star Wars may not feature microbiology or organic chemistry, there is still an influence of science there. The science used just isn't what one may call, "collegiate science." And even then, the hyperspace travel is being researched even today, so that may become a reality someday.

2) There is a wrong way to categorize films according to genres or sub-genres. Go to a Hollywood Video.

3) That's what I've been doing here all along, and you've been getting rather testy, Sciros.

[QUOTE]Don't be a fool. I told you not to critique my categorizations because you're not an authority on the matter and actually neither is anybody. I don't even consider IMDB to be the "go to" guys for film genres. So to me your criticism of my categorization is worth nil. That's why I told you not to bother. You can disagree with me, but that's all you're doing. You're never [i]correcting[/i] me. Let's be clear on that.[/QUOTE]
Is there a point to this? All I see here is someone essentially saying, "You're not allowed to criticize me." Are you serious, Sciros? Did I misinterpret your post here? Do you honestly believe that you are somehow immune to [i]anyone[/i] taking issue with what you have to say?


[quote]I only included the top 4 because this thread is titled "four best horror films." And no, I haven't seen Psycho and Silence of the Lambs. That might be why I named the Alien films as my favorite horror films. I'm not really into the horror genre. [b]As for what I'm doing in this thread?[/b] [b]That's a good question. The answer: I'm wasting my time.[/b][/QUOTE]
Yes, usually when one has very little background knowledge of a subject, they are indeed wasting their time, and would benefit greatly of removing themselves from a topic and perhaps get out there and gain some experience in the topic.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Petey']No, Sciros, you missed my point entirely. I've said that to define the genre, "horror," solely based upon the "slasher flick" is incorrect. The "slasher flick" is a sub-genre, not representational of the whole. I don't know how more bluntly I can put it, man. If you still can't get it now, then you never will.[/quote]
Ugh. I understood your point once you actually gave it (that is, after editing your first post on the matter). But I had already written my response by then. And I responded to an isolated series of statements, which, no matter how you try to spin them, were improper and you know it. Next time say what you mean to say to begin with, and you won't have to defend you crap writing by calling people who disagree with it ignorant.

[QUOTE]I discerned between "horror" and "slasher flicks" because you were defining the [i]entire[/i] horror umbrella genre in accordance to "slasher flicks." That is inappropriate. True horror, the essence of horror, is not teeny slasher. ...Slasher flicks do not solely define the umbrella genre of horror. They are not suitable source material on which to draw one's definition of horror.[/QUOTE]
That depends on what you feel like defining as "horror." And like I've said before, when I think horror I think the "slasher flicks," monster movies, and I guess that's it. That's what comes to mind. I haven't seen many of the other films that are considered part of the genre and are supposedly good. So I draw my definition of horror based on what I've watched, and what I consider "horror" as opposed to "suspense thriller" or whatever. ...Oh, and again you say that "true horror" is not "teeny slasher," meaning that they're different things. Well to me there's no such thing as "true horror," there's just "horror," and "teeny slasher" falls under it and that's that. To me "teeny slasher" IS "true horror" because the way I see it there's no "pretend horror." But I never said that was the entire genre. But I'm gonna say what I've been trying to get across one last time, so we can drop the subject. I categorize films differently from you, and that's that. Your "true horror" is not my "true horror" and for all I know we might not even consider the same movies "teeny slasher." James was right when he said that what makes this thread difficult is the definition of "horror." But he didn't mean that some people understood it and others didn't. He meant that the definition differs depending on whom you ask.

[QUOTE]I'm saying that even though you dislike it, at least appreciate what the film does. At least admire what Carpenter was doing. You don't have to like it, and I never implied that you had to suddenly love everything that John Carpenter has ever done, and it's not even taking someone else's opinion and holding it over your own, lol. It's simply being a level-headed, mature, and reasonable filmgoer.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that way. Whatever a film tried to do, or whatever its message, if I think it's a crap film then to me that's that. I don't "admire what [whoever] was doing" if he failed to do it well (IMO). To me that's mature and reasonable enough.

[QUOTE] I suppose then, Death Star means nothing? Jumping through hyperspace? What about protocol droids that have the capacity for speech and can translate up to four billion different languages? While Star Wars may not feature microbiology or organic chemistry, there is still an influence of science there. The science used just isn't what one may call, "collegiate science." And even then, the hyperspace travel is being researched even today, so that may become a reality someday.[/QUOTE]
I don't really want to discuss Star Wars much, but yeah I don't see any of that as being "science." Die Another Day has more science than Star Wars. It's not considered sci-fi. Star Wars as I see it is fantasy (albeit in a futuristic setting). Droids, hyperspace travel, etc. Those are trappings of sci-fi, but they don't define the genre (for me in any case). Anyway, my whole point was that categorizations are different for different people. I don't see Star Wars as sci-fi. Now you have my reasoning.

[QUOTE]That's what I've been doing here all along, and you've been getting rather testy, Sciros.[/QUOTE]
Not more so than you. Petey, you always write in an unbelievably condescending tone. I don't know if you've noticed, but it's the truth. That's why it's a pain in the *** reading anything you write. It also makes everything you say that much less meaningful in my eyes. And just because you keep calling me ignorant and arrogant and what not, doesn't mean that you're right to do so. I can throw those words around as well, and what would they mean to you?

[QUOTE]Is there a point to this? All I see here is someone essentially saying, "You're not allowed to criticize me." Are you serious, Sciros? Did I misinterpret your post here? Do you honestly believe that you are somehow immune to [i]anyone[/i] taking issue with what you have to say?[/QUOTE]
Yeah you misinterpreted my post. You can take issue with it, but realize just what it means to me when you do so. That's what my post meant. Criticize all you want, but since I see you as hardly an authority on any matter, all I'll end up doing is trying to explain my point of view. You see there's a difference in the way we talk to each other here. You attack what I write, and I defend what I write. That's what we have going. But I have never considered you more right than me, which is why I keep telling you to stop with your worthless criticism. The only reason I reply to your posts is so other people aren't fooled into thinking that you know what you're talking about [i]as opposed[/i] to me.

We have different viewpoints on nearly every subject that we've discussed. But that's all they are. I am not going to tell you that mine is necessarily more "right" than yours, because there's no arbiter above us to judge that. But I have mine and you have yours. I ask that you don't stress that yours is more "right" than mine, regardless of how superior to me you may feel. I really do have a problem with the way you post. Rather than saying, "well, I think it's like [i]this[/i] because of the following reasons..." you say "I can't believe you'd be so ignorant as to say [i]that[/i]! Are you too stupid to understand that it's [i]this[/i]?!" Defend you views instead of wasting everyone's time attacking others. It's more civil and more productive.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Ugh. I understood your point once you actually gave it (that is, after editing your first post on the matter). But I had already written my response by then.[/quote]If I was able to Edit my post accordingly, then you were able to, as well. It is your own fault for not making an addendum to your response. Having already written a response is fine and good, but if you wish to be thorough in a discussion, you must be willing to think on your toes and edit your responses if need be. In this case, there was a need. Sciros, you're really getting desperate here, aren't you? Using "Oh, you edited your post" as an excuse? Pardon my French, but that's ******** and you should know that.

[quote]And I responded to an isolated series of statements, which, no matter how you try to spin them, were improper and you know it.[/quote]What "isolated statements" are you talking about? Let's go back and see my post, shall we? I can only assume that you're talking about my first few posts, or perhaps the ones that I Edited, so...you know what, how about we just review when you quoted me?

[quote]Originally Posted by [b]Petey[/b]
[i]I hardly think it's appropriate to classify Halloween and its sub-genre as "horror." If anything, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc, are "slasher flicks."[/i]

Not so. John Carpenter's The Thing, Night of the Living Dead, The Ring, Blair Witch are all very worthwhile mature films that adhere to the principles set forth by classic and mature horror films. They are what horror should be, and put the teen slasher flick to shame.

I'll debunk this later. I've got some lawnwork to do, but remember, the typical horror film formula is not what true horror is. That formula is based off of slasher flicks...thrillers, like James has said. Films that base their progression on plot points and not character development. They're not horror at all. They're cookiecutter cinema, lol.

To automatically write-off The Thing just because you dislike it is an injustice to what the film accomplishes, and the messages and ideologies it holds. If you don't believe me when I tell you The Thing has a brain behind it, check out my review of it on the previous page. It's a rather well-conceived piece of cinema, and hardly deserves to be ignored by someone simply because they don't like it.

To be able to appropriately look at the genre as a whole, you need to be able to successfully differentiate between the sub-genres. The umbrella genre of horror is not the only distinction around. There are no "black and white" distinctions when it comes to entertainment, and this affects the umbrella genre of horror. "Slasher flicks" are nowhere near what Hitchcock was doing with Vertigo. Alien is entirely different from Friday the 13th. The particulars of the genre, also called sub-genres, are extremely important to know of when talking about any umbrella genre.

I'll critique whatever I want, man. You're not safe from someone disagreeing with you. You are not entitled to any special treatment. If I disagree with you, I'm going to speak my mind. It'd suit you well to chill out and not take things so personally.

Do you see anything remotely resembling "slasher flicks" in that list? You haven't seen Psycho? Haven't seen Silence of the Lambs? What are you doing in this thread again?...Furthermore, why not just include the entire list?[/quote]You think that material was improper? I was rather reserved in that entire excerpt, Sciros. If I had wanted to, I would have actually been harsh. If you're accusing those quotes of being improper simply because of the "you're not entitled to any special treatment" line, then ask James about some stuff regarding the rules. Nobody on OB is entitled to any special treatment, dude. Everyone is expected to abide by the rules, to be able to hold mature and rational discussion without resorting to just blatantly and outright attacking someone.

You think I'm being mean in this thread? Do you think that I've got some ulterior motives here? I'm just trying to get you to realize reality, dude. You're not magically exempt from people taking issue with what you have to say. That's not how things work [i]anywhere[/i]. And I know that when I see a problem or questionable material, I say something about it. I make sure to have input in the discussion/topic.

I was improper? Hardly.

[quote]Next time say what you mean to say to begin with, and you won't have to defend you crap writing by calling people who disagree with it ignorant.[/quote]Funny how you seem to be the only member here who is completely unable to understand any of my posts, no matter how I may write them. Am I or is my writing style really the problem here, Sciros?

[QUOTE]That depends on what you feel like defining as "horror." And like I've said before, when I think horror I think the "slasher flicks," monster movies, and I guess that's it. That's what comes to mind. [b]I haven't seen many of the other films that are considered part of the genre and are supposedly good[/b]. So I draw my definition of horror based on what I've watched, and what I consider "horror" as opposed to "suspense thriller" or whatever.[/quote]I've bolded what I've been impressing upon you in this thread. You have very little experience when it comes to films of the umbrella genre of horror, and thus cannot make any informed or educated assessment of what is good or bad. Having an opinion is fine and dandy, Sciros, but your opinion is based on an extremely limited scope.

[quote]...Oh, and again you say that "true horror" is not "teeny slasher," meaning that they're different things.[/quote]I believe we've established that teeny slasher movies represent a very skewed and misguided take that hyperfocuses on a very uneducated facet of the umbrella genre of horror. That means that teeny slasher movies are not in touch with what the essence of horror is. They concentrate solely on a distracted concept of the genre and nothing more. Was that a simple enough explanation?

[quote]Well to me there's no such thing as "true horror," there's just "horror," and "teeny slasher" falls under it and that's that. To me "teeny slasher" IS "true horror" because the way I see it there's no "pretend horror." But I never said that was the entire genre. But I'm gonna say what I've been trying to get across one last time, so we can drop the subject. I categorize films differently from you, and that's that. Your "true horror" is not my "true horror" and for all I know we might not even consider the same movies "teeny slasher." James was right when he said that what makes this thread difficult is the definition of "horror." But he didn't mean that some people understood it and others didn't. He meant that the definition differs depending on whom you ask.[/QUOTE]
Sciros, you've admitted that you have not seen many horror films, correct? Yes, I bolded that sentence just a few paragraphs above. No offence, but you really have no leg to stand on if you lack experience/knowledge of a subject. Remember our discussion in The Passion? I had no experience living in the USSR and thus did not have the necessary knowledge to talk about it. Think about how that point applies to this discussion.

See, everything I say, I say for a reason. Everything I do, I do for a reason. Planning ahead for any circumstance is a very useful skill to possess.

About your "teeny slasher" point, Friday the 13th. Nightmare on Elm Street. Scream. I Know What You Did Last Summer. Halloween. Really, any scary movie that starred teenagers and made in the 1980s. Do you disagree with any of that?

[QUOTE]I don't think that way. Whatever a film tried to do, or whatever its message, if I think it's a crap film then to me that's that. I don't "admire what [whoever] was doing" if he failed to do it well (IMO). To me that's mature and reasonable enough.[/QUOTE]Then you close your mind off to wond'rous things. In admitting that you will not give the message a chance if you think it's a crap film, why can't you admit that you're acting ignorant? You've already laid the groundwork, why not finish it?

[QUOTE]I don't really want to discuss Star Wars much, but yeah I don't see any of that as being "science." Die Another Day has more science than Star Wars. It's not considered sci-fi. Star Wars as I see it is fantasy (albeit in a futuristic setting). Droids, hyperspace travel, etc. Those are trappings of sci-fi, but they don't define the genre (for me in any case). Anyway, my whole point was that categorizations are different for different people. I don't see Star Wars as sci-fi. Now you have my reasoning.[/QUOTE]If you didn't want to discuss Star Wars, why even bring it up in the first place? Plus, even though Star Wars isn't the sole defining piece of cinema for the genre, it still is part of the genre, and while it isn't necessarily as complex as say, Minority Report, it still features elements of science fiction. This is an example of the shades of gray we were discussing. Every genre has those shades of gray, horror included. Because of this shades of gray, we don't hold Star Wars as the definition of sci-fi, nor do we hold Scream as the definition of horror. See what I'm getting at?

[QUOTE]Not more so than you. Petey, you always write in an unbelievably condescending tone. I don't know if you've noticed, but it's the truth. That's why it's a pain in the *** reading anything you write. It also makes everything you say that much less meaningful in my eyes. And just because you keep calling me ignorant and arrogant and what not, doesn't mean that you're right to do so. I can throw those words around as well, and what would they mean to you?[/QUOTE]You see, that's your own perception of a situation. I'm actually playing nice here. Other members are able to understand the "unbelievably condescending" tone is just how I write. Of course, if you want to see condescending, I could try to sound condescending and get banned. It would be that outrageous and offensive. Something to muse over for your reply.

[quote]Yeah you misinterpreted my post. You can take issue with it, but realize just what it means to me when you do so. That's what my post meant. Criticize all you want, but since I see you as hardly an authority on any matter, all I'll end up doing is trying to explain my point of view.[/quote]You feel it's a threat. That's the bottom line. You are unable to hold any type of discussion where an opposing viewpoint is presented. Considering, also, based upon your lack of experience with the horror genre, I really don't think you should be criticizing me here, based on the topic of "authority of a subject." In the thread about The Passion, you emphasized that experience in a topic is important, and those who have experience in a topic have a stronger and more worthwhile position than one who knows very little and who has had very little experience in said topic.

It's a good observation back then, and it's still a worthwhile observation now.

[quote]You see there's a difference in the way we talk to each other here. You attack what I write, and I defend what I write. That's what we have going. But I have never considered you more right than me, which is why I keep telling you to stop with your worthless criticism. [b]The only reason I reply to your posts is so other people aren't fooled into thinking that you know what you're talking about [i]as opposed[/i] to me[/b].[/quote]So you insist on replying just so you don't lose face with others here? You are concerned about your image. You are worried that you'll look bad if you stop replying. You think it'll look like you've given up. I've stopped replying to a few threads in the past few months. I certainly am not worried what others will think, because I have confidence in my abilities and I don't feel the need to prove my worth or validate myself.

You, on the other hand, are insecure about yourself. Why else would you insist on replying, just so it doesn't look like you backed down, ran away with your tail behind your legs? Are you really that sure of yourself, Sciros? Are you really that sure that you are able to avoid getting caught? You're trashing now, and you've thrashed before, but the fisherman will get you. Why not just concede now and get away before you get gutted?

If one is truly confident in their abilities, opinions, and interpretations, would one react in the manner you do?

[quote]We have different viewpoints on nearly every subject that we've discussed. But that's all they are. I am not going to tell you that mine is necessarily more "right" than yours, because there's no arbiter above us to judge that. But I have mine and you have yours. I ask that you don't stress that yours is more "right" than mine, regardless of how superior to me you may feel. I really do have a problem with the way you post. [b]Rather than saying, "well, I think it's like [i]this[/i] because of the following reasons..." you say "I can't believe you'd be so ignorant as to say [i]that[/i]! Are you too stupid to understand that it's [i]this[/i]?!" Defend you views instead of wasting everyone's time attacking others. It's more civil and more productive[/b].[/QUOTE]You'll find that I do post that way in my initial posts in any thread. The times that I haven't, were in a very recent "Three Worst Movies of All-Time" thread, and no offence to CHW, but the points needed to be made, to reveal the meanings and intents of Blair Witch and Adaptation.

When I see a grave injustice or grave misinterpretation of a work, I say something. The teacher in me will not allow others to be left with a misunderstanding. And in that thread, it was a rather significant and glaring misunderstanding.

Other than that, I'm a pretty easy-going guy. The only times I do get invested in something is when it's important in the context of the setting in which it takes place. For the most part, if someone disagrees with me, fine, provided they have a reasonable basis for their disagreement, and don't fallback on "It's what I think." I like evidence and support for a thesis, and I expect others to do the same. I don't deal in abstractions, and neither should anyone else if they want to have a well-developed argument.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Petey']If I was able to Edit my post accordingly, then you were able to, as well. It is your own fault [blah blah][/quote]
So now you're gonna get on my case about me not editing my posts? First of all, shove it. Second, I only edit my posts when they'd be wrong to leave as they are, and mine aren't. Saying that Halloween is not "horror" but rather "slasher" was wrong then and it still is. Nevermind everything else you said afterwards. If you want me to edit out my disagreeing with that statement, edit out that statement first.

[QUOTE]I was rather reserved in that entire excerpt, Sciros. If I had wanted to, I would have actually been harsh. If you're accusing those quotes of being improper simply because of the "you're not entitled to any special treatment" line, then ask James about some stuff regarding the rules. Nobody on OB is entitled to any special treatment, dude.[/QUOTE]
You are the rudest person I've met on these boards. The "you're not entitled to special treatment" line is just you trying to be an asshole. Really. I mean are you serious when you write that ********? I wasn't saying "please don't hurt me, Petey, I can't stand it." I was saying that you are NOT right as opposed to me and so it would behoove you to defend your own views rather than attack mine. That's what I was saying. Realize that before you write another of your "you can't escape my wrath, you idiot" paragraphs. You make an idiot of yourself every time you do that.

[QUOTE]Funny how you seem to be the only member here who is completely unable to understand any of my posts, no matter how I may write them. Am I or is my writing style really the problem here, Sciros?[/QUOTE]
Nobody else bothers with you, is all. And I understand your posts. I just think they're rude and wrong. And yes, your style is part of the problem.

[QUOTE]I've bolded what I've been impressing upon you in this thread. You have very little experience when it comes to films of the umbrella genre of horror, and thus cannot make any informed or educated assessment of what is good or bad. Having an opinion is fine and dandy, Sciros, but your opinion is based on an extremely limited scope.[/QUOTE]
Really? Wow, you're a real genius for figuring that out. I kinda made it clear that my opinions are based on a limited scope, seeing as I've mentioned that I haven't seen many of the films you have discussed. But, then again, I did also say the following:
[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']You see, I listed the 4 films I liked. I don't care who considers them "the best" or "good" or whatever.[/quote]

[quote name='Petey']teeny slasher movies are not in touch with what the essence of horror is. They concentrate solely on a distracted concept of the genre and nothing more. Was that a simple enough explanation?[/quote]
You keep talking about this nebulous "essense of horror," but you never really say what even YOU think it is. Deny it all you want, but you LOVE to deal in abstractions and have a way of avoiding saying anything concrete. So, then, what is the so-called "essense of horror?" What is "true horror?" If I look it up on the internet, I get 1000 different views. What's yours? And why should I agree with it?

[QUOTE]Sciros, you've admitted that you have not seen many horror films, correct? Yes, I bolded that sentence just a few paragraphs above. No offence, but you really have no leg to stand on if you lack experience/knowledge of a subject. Remember our discussion in The Passion? I had no experience living in the USSR and thus did not have the necessary knowledge to talk about it. Think about how that point applies to this discussion.[/QUOTE]
Maybe YOU should think about it a bit longer. In [i]that[/i] discussion, you were making all of your points based of sheer misinformation. In this discussion, I was simply listing the horror films I liked, and then explaining to you why they were the ones I liked. I have NOT been dealing in misinformation. And even though you may think that my "favorite horror" films would be different if I was more familiar with the genre, that's not the point and I was never trying to argue with you on that.

[QUOTE]Then you close your mind off to wond'rous things. In admitting that you will not give the message a chance if you think it's a crap film, why can't you admit that you're acting ignorant? You've already laid the groundwork, why not finish it?[/QUOTE]
Um, what the hell does it mean to "give the message a chance?" I've watched the film, that's as good a chance as I can give it. If it gets lost or ruined in the crappiness of a movie for me, then that's just too bad. It's not acting ignorant, it's more like being unforgiving. Kind of like if a student hands in a paper and although the ideas are right they are all written ***-backwards, you're not going to give the student an A.

[QUOTE]Every genre has those shades of gray, horror included. Because of this shades of gray, we don't hold Star Wars as the definition of sci-fi, nor do we hold Scream as the definition of horror. See what I'm getting at?[/QUOTE]
I don't define horror with Scream. I never did. I just told you what comes to mind when I think horror. Yes, I'm part of THAT audience. But again, my point (which you keep missing or ignoring): my view of horror films differs from yours. And it might not change if I watch all the "horror" films I haven't yet. Maybe I'd consider them "thrillers" or whatever. I've always referred to slasher and monster movies as "horror." It's just a distinction I use. I never said it's the absolute definition of the genre.

[QUOTE]You see, that's your own perception of a situation. I'm actually playing nice here. Other members are able to understand the "unbelievably condescending" tone is just how I write. Of course, if you want to see condescending, I could try to sound condescending and get banned. It would be that outrageous and offensive. Something to muse over for your reply.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is you are unable to talk politely to people. Well work on it.

[QUOTE]I really don't think you should be criticizing me here, based on the topic of "authority of a subject." In the thread about The Passion, you emphasized that experience in a topic is important, and those who have experience in a topic have a stronger and more worthwhile position than one who knows very little and who has had very little experience in said topic.[/QUOTE]
I'm not criticizing your view on the subject, if you haven't noticed. But there IS no authority on it. There WAS an authority on what we were duscussing in the Passion thread. It was reality. In this case, there is no true standard on movie classifications (unless you disagree and can show me that there is). Also, think about what my position in this thread is. Really, just go ahead and reread what I've written. I've made it clear that I'm NOT an authority on the subject, and I've never tried to correct yon on anything except that one stupid comment you made at the start of your replies.

[QUOTE]You, on the other hand, are insecure about yourself. Why else would you insist on replying, just so it doesn't look like you backed down, ran away with your tail behind your legs? Are you really that sure of yourself, Sciros? Are you really that sure that you are able to avoid getting caught? You're trashing now, and you've thrashed before, but the fisherman will get you. Why not just concede now and get away before you get gutted?
If one is truly confident in their abilities, opinions, and interpretations, would one react in the manner you do?[/QUOTE]
Apparently, since I'm pretty confident in the above. That fishing analogy is genius, by the way. Do you really think you have me caught? What the hell am I supposed to concede to you? That I don't like the Alien films? That I don't categorize them under horror (sci-fi horror more precisely)? What?

[QUOTE] For the most part, if someone disagrees with me, fine, provided they have a reasonable basis for their disagreement, and don't fallback on "It's what I think." I like evidence and support for a thesis, and I expect others to do the same. I don't deal in abstractions, and neither should anyone else if they want to have a well-developed argument.[/QUOTE]
Except in this case, "it's what I think" is completely acceptable. People aren't here to provide a thesis. And you are the king of dealing in abstractions, although you don't realize it.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']So now you're gonna get on my case about me not editing my posts? First of all, shove it. Second, I only edit my posts when they'd be wrong to leave as they are, and mine aren't. Saying that Halloween is not "horror" but rather "slasher" was wrong then and it still is. Nevermind everything else you said afterwards. If you want me to edit out my disagreeing with that statement, edit out that statement first.[/quote]
"Shove it"? Aw. Isn't that sweet. Seriously, though, I try to be thorough in what I do. I didn't make a huge point of it, either. It really doesn't matter all that much, but since you had brought it up in the first place, I decided to comment on it. Tell you the truth, if you hadn't mentioned it, I wouldn't have talked about it. Simple as that. And there's no need to put that "blah blah" in the excerpt. Doing that is a sign of immaturity.

[QUOTE]You are the rudest person I've met on these boards. The "you're not entitled to special treatment" line is just you trying to be an asshole. Really. I mean are you serious when you write that ********? I wasn't saying "please don't hurt me, Petey, I can't stand it." I was saying that you are NOT right as opposed to me and so it would behoove you to defend your own views rather than attack mine. That's what I was saying. Realize that before you write another of your "you can't escape my wrath, you idiot" paragraphs. You make an idiot of yourself every time you do that.[/QUOTE]
Wait, wait, wait. Do you actually believe that this is some "You can't escape my wrath" vendetta? Get over yourself, dude. This is entertainment for me. Do you think that I've got you in my sights or something? Please, spare me your egomania, lol. Seriously, though, I do this for fun. Dagger has suggested, "If you think OB is dead, make fun for yourself." That's exactly what I'm doing, Sciros, my chickiebaby. And the "special treatment" line is the truth, too. It's all good, baby. Easy now. Oh, I'm making an idiot of myself? Like I even care, lol. My self-image is not reflected by how others see me, man. I am my own person and while it may sound bad to say it, I couldn't care less what others think of me, cause it's all good. I quote Jim Carrey in Man on the Moon, "They love me, they hate me, they walk out, it's all great."

[QUOTE]Nobody else bothers with you, is all. And I understand your posts. I just think they're rude and wrong. And yes, your style is part of the problem.[/QUOTE]
Well, hey man, that's your prob, not mine. Others aren't bothered by it like you are, so it's gotta be something wrong with you. Right, chickiebaby?

[QUOTE]Really? Wow, you're a real genius for figuring that out. I kinda made it clear that my opinions are based on a limited scope, seeing as I've mentioned that I haven't seen many of the films you have discussed. But, then again, I did also say the following:[/QUOTE]
I've known that from the beginning, but so far, you've failed to realize just what it means: that your opinion here is based on a limited perspective, effectively giving you a limited sense of what the cinema is, man.

[QUOTE]You keep talking about this nebulous "essense of horror," but you never really say what even YOU think it is. Deny it all you want, but you LOVE to deal in abstractions and have a way of avoiding saying anything concrete. So, then, what is the so-called "essense of horror?" What is "true horror?" If I look it up on the internet, I get 1000 different views. What's yours? And why should I agree with it?[/QUOTE]
Well, I was hoping you could figure it out based on what horror films I've been praising, but true horror, pretty much since the conception of cinema, has always been about teaching the audience, about having a real message and not just "watch this killer slaughter these young, buxom teens with a machete."

[QUOTE]Maybe YOU should think about it a bit longer. In [i]that[/i] discussion, you were making all of your points based of sheer misinformation. In this discussion, I was simply listing the horror films I liked, and then explaining to you why they were the ones I liked. I have NOT been dealing in misinformation. And even though you may think that my "favorite horror" films would be different if I was more familiar with the genre, that's not the point and I was never trying to argue with you on that.[/QUOTE]
No, but you were definitely dealing with lack of information. And if you think about it, so was I back in that thread.


[QUOTE]Um, what the hell does it mean to "give the message a chance?" I've watched the film, that's as good a chance as I can give it. If it gets lost or ruined in the crappiness of a movie for me, then that's just too bad. It's not acting ignorant, it's more like being unforgiving. Kind of like if a student hands in a paper and although the ideas are right they are all written ***-backwards, you're not going to give the student an A.[/QUOTE]
True, I'm not going to give the student an A, but I'm sure as hell not going to flunk them. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and give them a second chance. That's what you need to do with particular films. Doesn't that make sense, chickiebaby?

[QUOTE]I don't define horror with Scream. I never did. I just told you what comes to mind when I think horror. Yes, I'm part of THAT audience. But again, my point (which you keep missing or ignoring): my view of horror films differs from yours. And it might not change if I watch all the "horror" films I haven't yet. Maybe I'd consider them "thrillers" or whatever. I've always referred to slasher and monster movies as "horror." It's just a distinction I use. I never said it's the absolute definition of the genre.[/QUOTE]
Scream is a teeny slasher flick, albeit a self-knowledgeable one. And I've been saying all along, when you actually experience the scope of the genre, those teeny slasher flicks will stop being horror and become the cheesy thriller.

[QUOTE]So what you're saying is you are unable to talk politely to people. Well work on it.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I'm able to, but sometimes I don't. That's life. Learn to deal with it, man.

[QUOTE]I'm not criticizing your view on the subject, if you haven't noticed. But there IS no authority on it. There WAS an authority on what we were duscussing in the Passion thread. It was reality. In this case, there is no true standard on movie classifications (unless you disagree and can show me that there is). Also, think about what my position in this thread is. Really, just go ahead and reread what I've written. I've made it clear that I'm NOT an authority on the subject, and I've never tried to correct yon on anything except that one stupid comment you made at the start of your replies.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you're not really knowledgeable at all about this subject, and when I tell you that there is so much more to the genre and what you've seen is pretty much crap compared to the beauty of the full experience, your panties get in a twist, man.

[QUOTE]Apparently, since I'm pretty confident in the above. That fishing analogy is genius, by the way. Do you really think you have me caught? What the hell am I supposed to concede to you? That I don't like the Alien films? That I don't categorize them under horror (sci-fi horror more precisely)? What?[/QUOTE]
Do you really believe I was serious with that analogy? There's a point in every person's life when they need to stop taking everything one says seriously, dude. There comes a point in everyone's life when they need to learn how to relax and appreciate a ridiculous comment every so often. This is that time for you, Sciros. C'mon, man, chill out and start having fun, baby.

[quote]Except in this case, "it's what I think" is completely acceptable. People aren't here to provide a thesis. And you are the king of dealing in abstractions, although you don't realize it.[/QUOTE]
I don't deal in abstractions, now do I? You're just so rooted in looking at things at face value, dude, that you can't read between the lines.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Petey'] Chickiebaby * 1000 [/quote]

Hehe :cool: . Well alright then, I guess we're done with this thread. I'm just going to conclude with the following:

I agree that I am not an authority on horror films. I will stand by this and only this: "teen slasher" and "monsters killing idiots" is part of the more-encompassing horror genre AS I SEE IT. Of the horror films I've seen, Alien is my favorite, so I'm going to lump the Alien quadrilogy into one and say that those 4 are my favorite horror films.

I understand that you've seen much more horror films than I have. So if you say that there are other good horror films out there, I believe you. I haven't seen them yet, though. But I haven't really challenged you on anything you've said other than claiming a "true horror" genre, which I still hold does not exist. There's no "true drama" or "true sci-fi" or "true comedy" or "true adventure," and there's no "true horror." I've seen enough movies of all genres to at least know that. One can't put arbitrary restrictions on a genre based on what he/she considers its best (or, for that matter, its worst) films. So when I said, in my second post here, "stuff like Halloween--that's horror," I meant exactly that. I did not say that's the only type of horror there is, ever.

One more thing I want to add. If someone has read 100 times more DC comic books than I have, that person still won't necessarily be a better authority on what a "true superhero" should be than I am. Credentials aren't everything, especially in a case like this.

And on that note, I'm done. We can discuss this further on AIM if you want. But I say it's time for another thread to be defiled by our quarrels.

[Transtic Nerve]

If it is meant to scare you, in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, then by definition it is a "horror" movie.... the definition of horror is that what is meant to or does scare. Slasher flicks scare some people, therefor they are horror.

I don't see why anyone should debate over whether or not movies, which usually are crappy, are considered horror.

[TheShinje]

Slasher movies are simple, enjyoable, blood-soaked fun. They almost seem to me to be satirical, both of Horroir itself and themselves. But of course, watching people die in the most gory unusual and downright nasty way is the best drawcard for a slasher flick, IMO.

What I meant to say in the previous post of mine about the Blair Witch project, is that it does what it does well. The whole unseen villian can get pretty creepy, a tangeable witch would have made it less so for myself. Especially if that witch hat a pointy hat, a black cat,broomstick, all cliche's lol. Sorry about that last post, OB, was kind of in a wierd way, but I'm back to my normal self now ^_^


[font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']I don't see why anyone should debate over whether or not movies, which usually are crappy, are considered horror.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Transic Nerve is my new hero.

Of course, I'd like to go one step further and say why should anyone argue about someone else's choices, I mean gods it's just an opinion! :sweat:

I've noticed up here that movies are debated with a heck of a lot more vehemence than music. You can argue all you want about music and nobody leaves these yard long posts about why you should think differently, but you insult a movie, or chose a different movie and all anti-summerland (long story) breaks loose!

I'm sticking to what I said tho: The Birds by Alfred Hitchcock is the best horror flick ever made![/color]

[coconuts1977]

I thought the direction in Alien: Resurrection was very good. Jean-Pierre Jeunet is one of the best visual directors around, it's too bad the shoddy script had to hold him down. I should have guessed seeing as how the writer was the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer...what a shame, such a talented director...

[JC Goodwin]

Ok i think the 4 best horrors ever are Cannabal Holocaust, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ,Jason Goes to hell The final friday and Evi Dead. These are my fav cause to start off cannabal holocaust is proable the sickist film i ever saw. It was disturbing and twisted. The Chainsaw Massacre was in my opion just really creepy and i like the way that leather face jumped out of the bushes and killed stanley and jason goes to hell cause it was a film that ended one of the best horror series and Jason is my favourite serial killer. Althought jason x was a let down and i think Freddy vs Jason wasnt that gorey. And has anyone heard of a rumor about ash from evil dead in a film Freddy vs Jason vs Ash. That would rule. :devil: I just love evil dead cause it is so stupid but the first was a bit creepy. I love no 2 cause its just comically sick but i didnt think much of 3. To hollywoody. :(

[~*Lilith*~]

[font=bookantique][i]1. Hellraiser
2. Uzamaki
3. Battle Royale
4. May

They are my favorite four anyway. I have way more then that.[/i][/font]