|
Mind blowing I know, but it is acceptable to refer to a movie like Skyline or War of the Worlds as Sci-fi horror rather than splitting atoms over it
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
The original statement expressed incredulity that you could describe War of the Worlds as horror, when that's exactly what it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
There's a difference between suspense and horror you under stand that right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
People murdering other people in cold blood to save themselves in a terrible, apocalyptic scenario doesn't really rate as "suspense" to me, is what I'm trying to convey. I'm also using horror in the specific context of 9/11 which WOTW liberally borrows from.
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:People murdering other people in cold blood to save themselves in a terrible, apocalyptic scenario doesn't really rate as "suspense" to me, is what I'm trying to convey It also isn't a horror movie. Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
I'd like to recommend the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo as a good Horror movie. It has rape, murder, a serial murderer, and some gore. It has to count right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Let me spoil why people are disagreeing and thus save us all a lot of time: You're all working off of different definitions of 'horror'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
This derail is dumb. No one is going to win respective of the merits of their argument, so can we please just talk about something else? Can we talk about, like, Creature? Creature is an independent creature feature (duh) from last fall. I recently caught wind of this movie doing dismally. If there was any discussion of the film in the thread I missed it, so has anyone in these parts seen it and can speak on its behalf?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
H.P. Shivcraft posted:This derail is dumb. No one is going to win respective of the merits of their argument, so can we please just talk about something else? Can we talk about, like, Creature? It's been awhile since I watched it but I seem to remember it being alright. Definitely better than those horrible weekly SyFy creature movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
My internet sleuthery tells me this is from ?The Woman in Black? If it is, can I get some context about this photo? Is this girl possessed....a ghost...a scanner ? Otherwise, does anyone know what movie this is ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
It's Sophie Stuckey in The Dark, not The Woman in Black. Sadly that's all I know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
I just watched The Wicker Tree. I don't think I've ever been so let down by a movie. Absolute garbage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Let me spoil why people are disagreeing and thus save us all a lot of time:
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
This is actually something I've been trying to write about, what makes a film a "horror film". Here's all I can add: There are films which have "horror" as their material, and realize that by drawing on a historical context of stylistic and narrative conventions. You'll find these in the "horror" section of your local video store, and their covers will probably all use the same color scheme/typography. There are other films which have "horror" as their material, but do not employ this historical context, or are at least less heavy-handed about it (see: Hundu and SMG. I'd also stress the Holocaust imagery of the river scene in WotW, because what other reaction should one have to that? Suspense? Wonder?) A movie can have "horror" as its material without being set in a decaying Victorian manor or having a guy with a knife stalk cheerleaders. Some films escape the simplistic categorization that the term "horror film" belongs to, but that doesn't mean they're any less concerned with "horror".
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
faustcf posted:I just watched The Wicker Tree. I don't think I've ever been so let down by a movie. Absolute garbage. I watched this at my parent's house. All we could do after the finale is quietly chuckle a WTF chuckle and never speak of it again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
EgillSkallagrimsson posted:I watched this at my parent's house. All we could do after the finale is quietly chuckle a WTF chuckle and never speak of it again. But is it worse than the Wicker Man remake? If so you can almost excuse it as a counter-troll.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
frozenpeas posted:But is it worse than the Wicker Man remake? If so you can almost excuse it as a counter-troll. Much, much worse. Like Syfy bad. Why did Christopher Lee have to be in it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
frozenpeas posted:But is it worse than the Wicker Man remake? If so you can almost excuse it as a counter-troll. It was worse in every conceivable way. It made the remake look like high art by comparison. faustcf posted:Much, much worse. Like Syfy bad. Why did Christopher Lee have to be in it? Worse than SyFy. I'd rather watch a Sharkoctocadile marathon rather than sit through that again. EgillSkallagrimsson fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Because he's going to be dead very soon and he's appearing in as much poo poo as possible while he has the chance. (Christopher Lee will never die).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Yeah, and just because a movie has elements that show up in the horror genre doesn't automatically make it "a horror movie", that's the point. It's not about specific elements. The next closest thing to Spielberg's War of the Worlds, in terms of both its tone and much of its content, would be be Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. It also has some similarity to Children of Men - making it more of an apocalyptic horror film, though the sci-fi elements are obviously there (the film carries over a lot from Jurassic Park, thematically). The point of this genre terminology, after all, isn't to harshly categorize but to draw connections between different works, so that we can contextualize Skyline (for example) in a broader conversation with The Mist and Night of the Living Dead. Without that purposefulness, the whole genre designation thing is terribly arbitrary and you might as well just go to TVtropes. RightClickSaveAs posted:So are you saying that your opinion is the bad acting, plot and dialogue are an artistic choice? Yes, if you misidentify the film's occasionally campy low-fi character drama as 'bad'. The film knowingly juxtaposes microbudget indie-film drama with big-budget spectacle, and it's no surprise which one comes out ahead. That's actually the source of much of the horror. There's nothing 'wrong' with the indie stuff - it's actually quite well-shot for something with such a low budget. Consider that Paranormal Activity 2, incomprehensibly, cost six times what Skyline cost (before CG). And that's an ugly loving film. The PA comparison isn't random, because Skyline is pretty much literally a home movie, shot entirely in and around the director's apartment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
Aorist posted:This is actually something I've been trying to write about, what makes a film a "horror film". Here's all I can add: There are films which have "horror" as their material, and realize that by drawing on a historical context of stylistic and narrative conventions. You'll find these in the "horror" section of your local video store, and their covers will probably all use the same color scheme/typography. There are other films which have "horror" as their material, but do not employ this historical context, or are at least less heavy-handed about it (see: Hundu and SMG. I'd also stress the Holocaust imagery of the river scene in WotW, because what other reaction should one have to that? Suspense? Wonder?) A movie can have "horror" as its material without being set in a decaying Victorian manor or having a guy with a knife stalk cheerleaders. Some films escape the simplistic categorization that the term "horror film" belongs to, but that doesn't mean they're any less concerned with "horror". That always seemed a bit odd to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 11:55
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Reminds me of when I worked for Blockbuster Video and 'Saw' first came out on DVD. It was categorized as "horror". Meanwhile 'Seven', an otherwise similar (and actually much more graphic) movie was categorized as "drama". This is before the chain of Saw sequels, too. Any critically acclaimed horror becomes drama.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 12:07
|
|
|
Mouser.. posted:My internet sleuthery tells me this is from ?The Woman in Black? If it is, can I get some context about this photo? Is this girl possessed....a ghost...a scanner ? Otherwise, does anyone know what movie this is ? It's from The Dark http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411267/combined It's been years since I've seen the movie but I'm pretty sure she drowns in the opening of the movie and her mother keeps seeing her like this around the area.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 12:18
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:So would you call 'The Book of Eli' a horror movie? Because that happens in that movie, too. I'm not being a smartass, though. I'm not recontextualizing what happens in War of the Worlds just because it has aliens in it. I'm describing what happens to the characters in the film, which is 95% of the film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 14:03
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm not being a smartass, though. I'm not recontextualizing what happens in War of the Worlds just because it has aliens in it. I'm describing what happens to the characters in the film, which is 95% of the film. I agree with you that this is a much more useful way of classifying films, but what would you say constitutes a "Science fiction" film, if anything? Literally people talking about future science with no extraneous plot? Is that even a film? Time Trumpet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 14:12
|
|
|
Shanty posted:I agree with you that this is a much more useful way of classifying films, but what would you say constitutes a "Science fiction" film, if anything? If you want to show a Sci-Fi movie to someone who has never seen Sci-Fi, Blade Runner is a way better choice than Skyline. MrGreenShirt posted:It's an alien invasion with giant robots trying to terraform our planet. How much more "science fiction" do you need? Stuff like this is what's swinging the debate. It's easy to infer from this that the poster thinks any aliens = SciFi. Whether he's actually implying that or not I don't know but it's a terrible point to make. Use of alien creatures =/= SciFi. weekly font fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 14:22
|
|
|
Back to the Future is definitely a science fiction film. Mad Max 2 is not a science fiction film. Solaris is a science fiction film. Outland is not a science fiction film. Total Recall is a science fiction film. Why? Because in science fiction films, the themes of the film concern and explore outlandish concepts. The premise of War of the Worlds is that that aliens are here and that they have a particular agenda - however, we experience entire film through the eyes of a few characters who feel no awe or wonder toward the aliens, on the contrary, they're terrified of them. The perspective of the characters is of a hopeless world coming to an end, and what desperation and fear leads you to do to save yourself. This could easily be a story about terrorism or war, because there is considerable remove from the sci-fi concept. The aliens are terraforming Earth, but so what? Practically nothing would change if it were, say, the aftermath of a "dirty" bomb, or a freak tidal wave. The Back to the Future trilogy on the other hand, directly concerns itself with the implications of its sci-fi concept - time travel. It explores and embraces this concept at length, if you changed the sci-fi concept, it would be nonsensical. It's unmistakably concerned with a couple of characters interacting with their ancestors and descendants in funny ways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Back to the Future is definitely a science fiction film. Mad Max 2 is not a science fiction film. Solaris is a science fiction film. Outland is not a science fiction film. Total Recall is a science fiction film. Well good points, this makes a lot of sense. Not to get all Arthur C. here, but would you say this applies to "Fantasy" as well? Like if Doc Brown was Emmett the Brown, a time travelling wizard and Marty was his apprentice, BttF would be Fantasy. And conversely, turning the Tripods into dragons doesn't make WotW any less horror. I guess for concrete examples you could take that Harry Potter movie where they time travel a bit and Reign of Fire with Christian Bale. e: I'm not sure this post makes sense, but I would definitely watch Back to ye Olde Future so it has that going for it Shanty fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
It applies to any genre fiction, it's just that some types are so ossified and boilerplate that they are unmistakable for anything else because they so thoroughly exhaust the checklist of qualifications for that particular genre - I am thinking of this kind of thing being prevalent in romance novels or spy novels. In a lot of cases, I feel like the premise or the motif of the film is just spice, for example, a lot of people point out that Carpenter's Prince of Darkness and the earlier Assault on Precinct 13 are basically the same film in different costumes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
Shanty posted:
Sorry if I'm butting my way into this but No, it's all about context. Certain conventions don't immediately make a film "horror" or "SciFi." A brutal murder can be played for laughs in a comedy just as easily as for scares in a horror movie. The Time Travel in Harry Potter doesn't move it out of the fantasy genre because of the context and universe in which it is used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Sorry if I'm butting my way into this but No, it's all about context. Certain conventions don't immediately make a film "horror" or "SciFi." A brutal murder can be played for laughs in a comedy just as easily as for scares in a horror movie. The Time Travel in Harry Potter doesn't move it out of the fantasy genre because of the context and universe in which it is used. Yeah I guess I was kind of free-association posting there. The Harry Potter film with time travel is not the same thing as a fantasy version of BttF. I was trying to say that the Potter film is all about examining this central concept of time travel magic, but that's just clearly wrong. It's much more a movie about character growth or coming of age and doesn't "need" that specific magic in the way BttF needs the time machine concept. I think I was on slightly more solid ground with the Reign of Fire thing, which isn't about examining, like, the myth of the Dragon. It's more about how these survivors deal with the post-society society. In that sense, it could be dragons or martians or, whatever, mayan wizards. We'd still get that interesting retelling of the former culture (I love the Star Wars bit) and the whole downtrodden psychology. So if we don't distinguish between tripods and dragons, Reign of Fire is basically what happens if Tim Robbin's plan in WotW pans out and the tripods don't fall ill and die. I'm still just regurgitating my take on Hundu's point here, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
A easy test out is the "supernatural" element of horror, generally if it's science fiction it doesn't have this at all. A good example is Event Horizon, it's supernatural element is what pushes it into the horror genre. Science fiction doesn't have a supernatural element. It's why Triangle is horror and Timecrimes is science fiction. Both deal with time travel, but triangle is being driven by a outside unexplainable force and the woman is in hell . Science Fiction can use suspense, graphic disgusting things and still not be considered horror. It's why you have a sub category of Science Fiction Horror.Hell, most of the old 1950s B movies that were "science fiction films" had a horror film template The Fly etc.. The definitive story of science fiction is Aliens and invasion, thats why when you tell a person that the film is going to be about aliens and their invading their going to say Science Fiction. Also, generally Aliens are stand ins for other issues and Science fiction generally has a overwhelming moral motiff, Man shouldn't play god, Love conquers technology etc.. that is what makes a science fiction film. Saying the aliens represent terrorist or the fear of terrorism, doesn't mean it's horror. Science fiction commonly has a representation of fear of something. It uses a science and technology background to represent this fear and not a supernatural one. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
Spielburg has always had his toe in the horror pool. The knife scene from SPR is the most horrific thing I've ever seen in the cinema and the river of bodies in WOTW is a stright horror scene. WOTW is about paralyzing fear and helplessness in the face of unimaginable odds. It's more about surviving than fighting back, which pushes it towards horror, for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
Fighting against Aliens invading the earth though there's no supernatural element, if you use that as a rule then all of these other films fall into it's classification. You can actually argue that all movies are horror if you use that logic. Here you go: Cape Fear - faced against a almost unstoppable outside force that is going to cause you to lose your family. Loss of the family is a huge motivation in WOTW and other alien invasion films. It's the science fiction and technological element that pushes WOTW and movies like it into the science fiction category. Yes, it contains suspenseful and grotesque imagery, that doesn't mean it's horror. There are sub categories to Science Fiction like horror it doesn't match the classification of horror, it has elements of suspense that's it. It's not Event Horizon that is pretty much Science Fiction Horror or The Thing Science Fiction Horror or The Fly (cronenberg or the original) Science Fiction Horror. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
Hollis posted:A easy test out is the "supernatural" element of horror, generally if it's science fiction it doesn't have this at all. A good example is Event Horizon, it's supernatural element is what pushes it into the horror genre. Science fiction doesn't have a supernatural element. It's why Triangle is horror and Timecrimes is science fiction. Both deal with time travel, but triangle is being driven by a outside unexplainable force and the woman is in hell . At this point, I think "supernatural horror" is a bit of a misnomer. Horror as a material seems to consist largely of the breaking down of codified identity, i.e. the haunted house becomes a body, the mutated body becomes an assemblage of organs, etc., which attacks the very idea of transcendence. The Lovecraftian insanity is vertigo; it's Elders all the way down. Look at The Exorcist, it's nominally a "supernatural" horror, but the only out the psychiatrist-priest has is self-annihilation, a decidedly immanent solution to the problem. The horror of possession is not the revelation of a "higher" plane, it's the dissolution of the border separating them, the emergence of the underlying incomprehensible chaos. I've tried to come up with an example of supernatural horror that doesn't simultaneously undo the idea of the supernatural, and I come up empty-handed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
Aorist posted:I've tried to come up with an example of supernatural horror that doesn't simultaneously undo the idea of the supernatural, and I come up empty-handed. Or indeed, an example of supernatural horror that doesn't have considerable ambiguity or an "out" that allows the supernatural event to be subjective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Any critically acclaimed horror becomes drama. Or any horror movie directed by a high-profile director. (e.g., The Silence of the Lambs, Black Swan). They might also become thrillers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Or indeed, an example of supernatural horror that doesn't have considerable ambiguity or an "out" that allows the supernatural event to be subjective. Good point. And to swing back to the horror/scifi problem, I think it's ultimately a matter of tone. In science fiction, the advances of technology carry humanity to the same limit of chaotic materialism that is horror's material, and we confront the same problems there. Remove the elegaic tone, and Blade Runner could easily be a straight up body horror. It's similar to the tenuous distinction between comedy and tragedy. War of the Worlds has elements of science fiction, but its predominant tone is one of horror.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
Hollis posted:It's the science fiction and technological element that pushes WOTW and movies like it into the science fiction category. Yes, it contains suspenseful and grotesque imagery, that doesn't mean it's horror. There are sub categories to Science Fiction like horror it doesn't match the classification of horror, it has elements of suspense that's it. It's not Event Horizon that is pretty much Science Fiction Horror or The Thing Science Fiction Horror or The Fly (cronenberg or the original) Science Fiction Horror. I'm still not sure what you're talking about here. Science Fiction has a heavy focus on SCIENCE. There needs to be some discussion on the creation of these things, the biology behind them or their instinctual motivations. Something, anything like this beyond "they caught our cold!". Think the bomb scare era with black and white scientists surrounded by giant oscillators talking about radiation and poo poo. There's no focus on science in War of the Worlds. Again the use of aliens does not automatically mean SciFi. Is ET a Family SciFi film?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
For those that have seen Cabin in the Woods - In a non-spoiler way, can you tell me how gory/bloody it is? I plan on going this weekend but my girlfriend can't stand the graphic stuff (she still won't let me forget the time I took her to Hobo With a Shotgun).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 17:19
|
|
