|
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. Changling , The Ring, The Omen, every single ghost story ever. Wolfman, Dracula, uh there are a lot. There's a ton of focus on science in War of the Worlds, I mean isn't one of the main plot points is electricity stops working. Their TERRAFORMING using SCIENCE to change the earth. Also, I just like capitalazing SCIENCE. Their using advanced technology to take over the earth. How is that not science.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Hollis posted: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. Loss of the family is a huge thing in pretty much all human narrative. Classic tragedies are about the (self)destruction of the family, comedies are about the initial loss or fissure of the family which is healed in the end. It's like SMG said, genre boundaries are permeable and terminology is not meant to delineate but to articulate. If anything, genre classification arises from the overall affective response to a piece of media -- and has been said, the general sense of the implied viewer during War of the Worlds is one of abject horror. The science and technology are there, but it's a smokescreen, or rather an apparatus allowing us to rationalize our feelings of sublimity and horror. Spielberg is particularly good at this. Consider: Jaws is about the disintegration of the family unit due to fissures in the broader social community. The devouring shark comes to mirror the greed of the people of Amity, who wish to buy and consume and enjoy regardless of their personal safety. Brody's own desire to warn people and stop the shark puts him into similar danger (first by putting him into conflict with the Amity administration, who wish to consume despite his objections, and then into the path of the shark, who will consume despite his objections). This strains his relationships with his wife and his children, first by divorcing him from the social order, then by threatening his life. Brody and the audience are made to confront two types of monstrous consumption; the apparent desired response of the film in this regard is shock, disgust, and terror. However, these elements are overcome and the monster is defeated. Jaws is a horror film, likely to skew toward thriller by some measures. This is because though the shark is behaving in a highly unnatural way there is nothing made of it diegetically -- it's not a mutant shark or anything, and people generally act as if the shark is just doing what sharks naturally do. Except it isn't, there is a false veil of naturalism. And because this was posted as I was typing: Hollis posted:Their using advanced technology to take over the earth. How is that not science. Let me show you. War of the Worlds is about the disintegration of the family unit and the broader social community. These structures are put under pressure by alien creatures which invade earth via lightning bolts from space. The aliens possess advanced technology and set about terraforming earth; humans turn against one another and there is complete chaos in the face of an encroaching enemy. The emphasis is placed on the human reaction to this outside force (which, as had been pointed out, is a post-9/11 anxiety: a broken family [symptomatically modern] is further broken by their country being literally changed into something else beneath their feet by foreign enemies, which in turn changes those around them into enemies, etc). The apparent desired response of the film is, again, shock, disgust, and terror. This film can be classified as science fiction, because it makes a big deal out of technology, of both humanity and the aliens. However, while the technology of the aliens is there, it is akin to Jaws's veil of naturalism, as there is no effort made to explain (indeed, no interest elicited in) how the alien technology or society works, why they need to harvest human blood to fertilize their alien terraforming weed, or why they don't account for earth's microbes. The monsters are defeated by "science" (microbes) which is so laughably dated as science that it's little more than a rationalization for the film's actual thrust, which is that there is an inherent quality in humanity/the Earth/America that will allow it to survive. Recall that the film ends with the broken family coming back together (though not explicitly reconciling, the gesture is made) as Morgan Freeman says this: Morgan Freeman's sage narration posted:From the moment the invaders arrived, breathed our air, ate and drank, they were doomed. They were undone, destroyed, after all of man's weapons and devices had failed, by the tiniest creatures that God in his wisdom put upon this earth. By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms. And that right is ours against all challenges. For neither do men live nor die in vain. What is being said here is that, even though humanity's technology and science was all for nil, God in his wisdom saw fit to give the aliens colds and kill them. We return to what is effectively and affectively the supernatural. Science as this film uses it is not "science" at all, but an expression of a mostly secularized and highly naturalized Divine Providence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Man's natural right does not inherently make something divine or divine providence, the whole film is based around hubris. It's a moral lesson in conquering of others and how ones own hubris for those that we think beneath us can overcome us. They weren't undone by man but by their hubris. The hubris being that we couldn't defeat them. Genres and sub genres are why we have sub classifications of genres. There is no supernatural element to the defeat of the Aliens. It's just a morality play on Hubris. I mean we're discussing literally a movie about aliens written originally in the 1890s and was the template for science fiction for nearly 60 years. It's literally where the classification started, no one knew what to call it. It was not horror, it wasn't drama. So what do you call it Science Fiction. It's not a a way to articulate its a way to classify something for ease of explaining, in this case Science Fiction because it's main element and theme is science and aliens. Science Fiction can contain elements of horror , grotesque , imagery etc.. We use the term science fiction because it doesn't fall into a category of the outright supernatural. God is usually present in most science fiction stories, one of the main aspects of the story is that man shouldn't play god and that science should have a moral aspect to it because with out morals it can become an abomination. These are basic common themes through out the science fiction Genre. How would you classify Sunshine? Science Fiction? Horror? Science Fiction Suspense? Hollismason fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
By now it's been established that we're talking about describing things and not merely categorizing them. You miss the point when you merely categorize things, especially in this case since we're talking about the 2005 film, War of the Worlds, and not (necessarily) H.G. Wells' book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
Daveski posted: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). Thinking back I can't remember a ton of gore. It's certainly no Hobo or Human Centipede or even Saw. Probably on par with the Friday the 13th reboot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
weekly font posted: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. Take a look at the post preceding mine. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Again, if you're talking about the movie, there's barely anything that characterizes it as science fiction. Every major event of the film is essentially one of abject horror. MrGreenShirt posted:It's an alien invasion with giant robots trying to terraform our planet. How much more "science fiction" do you need? My reply was mostly a half-comedic jab at HUNDU's comment, but it was also half-serious in that no matter what sort of movie someone tries to make the second they bring aliens in to it the general public will see it as a Sci-fi film. That's just the way it is. Yes there were horror elements in WotW, but there were Sci-fi elements too. Alien was a horror movie through and through, but it also featured an extra-terrestrial menace running rampant through a star ship in deep space. To say Alien was a Horror movie but not also a Sci-fi movie is ludicrous!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Thinking back I can't remember a ton of gore. It's certainly no Hobo or Human Centipede or even Saw. Probably on par with the Friday the 13th reboot. It reminded me a lot of the Friday Reboot in terms of everything until the last act, so that's a fairly apt comparison. Yeah, there is some gore, but it's not the focus of the film, or played super gleefullly like in Hobo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:By now it's been established that we're talking about describing things and not merely categorizing them. You miss the point when you merely categorize things, especially in this case since we're talking about the 2005 film, War of the Worlds, and not (necessarily) H.G. Wells' book. I'd describe it as a science fiction film, as saying this is a horror film inaccurately builds expectations in the viewer if they have never heard of it before. Because when you say horror, something completely different comes to mind for most people. Yes, it has scary moments that doesn't make it horror and that doesn't place it in the category of horror. Just because you found something scary doesn't make it horror. Alien invasions , futuristic weapons, man facing an alien threat are all parts of the science fiction genre. It's inappropriate to label it as such. Yes, there are suspenseful and tense moments of the film, yes some of it is grotesque, this doesn't mean its horror. You can't just take a big brush of horror and paint it over everything. If so then you can apply that to a multitude of films. The intensity of the film comes from a outside source that is science fiction in nature not supernatural.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
I concede in the sense that I have no clue what your point is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
I think when most of the film is the director trying to frighten his characters AND the audience, it's a horror film. War of the Words falls pretty neatly into that because all Steven was thinking was "How do I scare them now?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
My point is that it's a science fiction that has horror or suspenseful elements but when you refer to it as Horror film your misleading who you are speaking to. Lot's of films fall into that subcategory of Science Fiction Horror, usually because the latter for horror means horrific meaning there are scenes of a horrifying nature. There's really not in WOTW, the violence while suspenseful is not overtly grotesque such as John Carpenters The Thing or Event Horizon. I have no problem with people calling those Horror movies because there are scenes in that are actually horrific. edit: Why do we not have a science fiction thread? I just noticed that , did we ever?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
Hollis posted:edit: Well, I for one am pleasantly surprised at how reasonable and insightful this side-discussion has been, but the track record for scifi-related threads is not in keeping with it. That's one possible reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
It probably devolved int Back to the Future chat or something. In other news, What was the name of that Austin / sort of horror movie that was set during the daytime with bright bright lighting, stark back drop. The name just completely escapes me now and it's driving me crazy. Something about a woman meeting a guy and it's a slow build up to violence. Argh. It was set in austin and I remember the reviews stating that it was kind of ominous because the scenes were well lit and it was always really bright blue skys, but for the life of me cannot remember what it was called.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
I've never seen it, but could it be Paris, Texas?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
client posted:Not to mention the massively retarded ending Rabbi fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Hollis posted:It probably devolved int Back to the Future chat or something. In other news, What was the name of that Austin / sort of horror movie that was set during the daytime with bright bright lighting, stark back drop. The name just completely escapes me now and it's driving me crazy. Something about a woman meeting a guy and it's a slow build up to violence. Argh. It was set in austin and I remember the reviews stating that it was kind of ominous because the scenes were well lit and it was always really bright blue skys, but for the life of me cannot remember what it was called. Could it be The Killer Inside Me? Not that it is a horror in any sense of the word, but it does have a pretty brutal crescendo of violence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
MrGreenShirt posted:I've never seen it, but could it be Paris, Texas? No this is more recent. What horror review and news site do most people here use now. I've been using bloody disgusting but man it has gotten really lovely. I'm just looking for some place to find good horror indy films etc.. edit: Apparently it's Red White and Blue. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Hollis posted:It probably devolved int Back to the Future chat or something. In other news, What was the name of that Austin / sort of horror movie that was set during the daytime with bright bright lighting, stark back drop. The name just completely escapes me now and it's driving me crazy. Something about a woman meeting a guy and it's a slow build up to violence. Argh. It was set in austin and I remember the reviews stating that it was kind of ominous because the scenes were well lit and it was always really bright blue skys, but for the life of me cannot remember what it was called. Red, White, And Blue?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
troll for dollars posted:Red, White, And Blue? Yes , that is exactly it. Thanks a bunch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
Rabbi posted:The Divide chat from a couple of pages back! I wanted to come in here to say that there was some really cool post apoc/sci-fi possible in that movie, but then they made a terrible horror movie instead. Like I was genuinely curious about who did the attack, where all was hit and were there other survivors, how would life go on, etc?. So I kept watching the movie, but then they never answered any questions and basically I want my 2 hours back. None of the reviews that I read mentioned that they were actually interested in basically what amounts to the first 20 minutes and last 3 minutes of the movie, with everything in between being miserable to watch, but that's how I felt. I just want to know what they were doing with the children in the pods.  They bring up all these questions and then nothing becomes of them. I don't know if the director thought this was supposed to make viewers want a sequel. If so, he failed horribly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
EgillSkallagrimsson posted:I don't know if the director thought this was supposed to make viewers want a sequel. If so, he failed horribly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
I hear a lot about a horror movie which plays a very low note throughout to create an almost primal sense of unease which made some people who saw it in theaters physically ill, but I've never heard a title associated with the rumors. Does anyone know what they were talking about?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
User-Friendly posted:I hear a lot about a horror movie which plays a very low note throughout to create an almost primal sense of unease which made some people who saw it in theaters physically ill, but I've never heard a title associated with the rumors. Does anyone know what they were talking about? Didn't Paranormal do something like this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
User-Friendly posted:I hear a lot about a horror movie which plays a very low note throughout to create an almost primal sense of unease which made some people who saw it in theaters physically ill, but I've never heard a title associated with the rumors. Does anyone know what they were talking about? No idea on what film you're referring to, but low frequency sounds get used in lots of horror/suspense films. Just of the top of my head, Paranormal Activity, Irreversable, The Exorcist, and The Shining.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
User-Friendly posted:I hear a lot about a horror movie which plays a very low note throughout to create an almost primal sense of unease which made some people who saw it in theaters physically ill, but I've never heard a title associated with the rumors. Does anyone know what they were talking about? You're probably thinking of Irreversible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
caiman posted:You're probably thinking of Irreversible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiPq-RCptYI SuperMechagodzilla posted: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. I'm going to apply Occam's razor here and say that the budget limitations dictated the quality of the script.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
User-Friendly posted:I hear a lot about a horror movie which plays a very low note throughout to create an almost primal sense of unease which made some people who saw it in theaters physically ill, but I've never heard a title associated with the rumors. Does anyone know what they were talking about? The movie that immediately came to mind was The Grudge, although this might be more of a 'heard it from a friend of a friend' thing, so someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think this is a particularly rare practice with sound editing in horror as it is. That doesn't count as a recommendation, mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
The first musical opening of Terminator has that tone, we talked about it in film class it's a specific tone that sets people on edge similar to the sound found in high energy power lines. Some people just cannot stand the noise at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
Finally checked out The Divide. I liked it right up until the midway point when I realized they weren't going to do anything with the mysterious hazard suit wearing guys and their stasis pod things subplot. When they first showed up and there's that one sequence in the lab area, I was pleasantly surprised that there might have been some body horror stuff going on and it wasn't just a straight "people in a desperate situation slowly lose their poo poo and turn on each other for no reason" movie, but nope. No other mention past that point. It was the most intriguing part of the whole movie and it was nothing more than a needlessly elaborate device for them to have a hazard suit the main character could use at the end, and to get rid of the little girl. And then that ending. Thanks, guy that saved me from unspeakable horror at the hands of lunatics. In return I'm going to let you die in a fire while I escape. My fiancee will keep you company because gently caress him too I guess. What a letdown.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
Horns posted:And then that ending. Thanks, guy that saved me from unspeakable horror at the hands of lunatics. In return I'm going to let you die in a fire while I escape. My fiancee will keep you company because gently caress him too I guess. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 08:23
|
|
|
Yeah, that's more or less what I thought. That scene at the end where she see's micky and the other guy with their shirts off trying to beat the fire, it seems to me she got it in her head that those two will be the next Josh and that other guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
Hollis posted:
The past few pages have been the most interesting in this thread. War of the Worlds is very clearly a horror film, or at least has horror as it's subject and not scifi. The intensity of the film, as you say, is driven by the human reaction to an imminent cultural shift (reaffirming the 9/11 comparisons) as horror. The outside source is tangential to the subject of the film, though I would also add that making a distinction between science fiction and the supernatural is silly, they are the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Danger posted:though I would also add that making a distinction between science fiction and the supernatural is silly, they are the same thing. No way is this universal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
How are genres not a way of categorizing movies? Maybe in CineD we can have fun dissecting our own personal definitions, but 99% of the world just uses genres as an easy reference to categorize movies. It helps you browse through the dvd shelves or pick out a movie on demand based on your mood at any given moment. I mean, theres a logical reason why you HAVE to put War of the Worlds in the Sci-Fi section. If you didn't, every rear end in a top hat in the place would be asking where it is. Genre's were created for the rest of the world, not CineD or people like SMG.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
It's like someone who is agoraphobic and describing every movie ever made that features people outside, terrifying, and horror movie. " You don't understand, she left the room and then went outside". Different strokes for different folks. The fact is words have meanings and definitions in order for us to label things, if people just made poo poo up about what specific words meant or connotated, then we wouldn't have loving language. We have labels like Horror and Science fiction and Drama in order to better communicate knowledge of the subject to someone else, not to articulate the statement. It's a complete falsehood. If you say Knocked up is a horror film. And they think Oh poo poo its going to be really grosse and scary because you think the idea of having a child is horrifying. Your communicating wrong. Knocked up is a comedy. they think its going to be funny. You've properly communicated. It's like those loving unreasonable short movie description sites you find on the website. Sure you can say that but it's all context. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Apr 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:How are genres not a way of categorizing movies? Maybe in CineD we can have fun dissecting our own personal definitions, but 99% of the world just uses genres as an easy reference to categorize movies. It helps you browse through the dvd shelves or pick out a movie on demand based on your mood at any given moment. No one is saying genres are not a way of categorizing, we're emphasizing that they can be more useful as a means of describing. What we're saying is there are more productive ways of understanding genre. For instance: there is a distinction to be made between genre as a marketing construction ('Which section of the bookstore should this novel go in?' or 'We need a new romantic comedy in theaters before the end of summer, get me two pretty leads and a contrived social conflict!') and what the piece of entertainment actually does. Yes, WotW is a sci-fi film because of aliens and because it was marketed as such, but it operates according to a logic of horror. If every scene included characters slipping on banana peels at inappropriate times (or a more subtle recurring element that ironically undercut the tension) it would still be a sci-fi film, but then it would operate in the mode of farce or parody. So in that regard you are correct that there is a way in which genre was "created for the rest of the world," if you take that phrase to mean "people who want to choose their entertainment based only on labels and not on the actual effective/affective qualities of that entertainment" (no one is really like this; we want a little of both). What I and others are advocating in this thread is a more nuanced understanding of how these labels, while necessary, are also incredibly fungible. The point of studying genre is not to mark things off a checklist and announce "A ha! I have deduced, gentlemen, that War of the Worlds is a horror film!" Rather, the point is to consider how multiple logics (of genre, among other things) are at work in single cultural objects. When you decide you like a particular genre label (as I assume most people posting here like films labeled "horror") it can be a rewarding experience to investigate the workings of that genre in order to judge its products, not by their adherence to some foregone code of conduct, but by the ways in which it intersects with tropes or figures from genres considered disparate. By the same token, you can study how things nominally not of that genre operate on similar underlying logics. Over-reliance on genre can also be problematic because it can be used to marginalize or discount some entertainment -- some genres are privileged over others, thus why many "good" horror films get relabeled as "dramatic thrillers" or something. There are value judgments implicit in genre labels, so testing them doesn't hurt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
All science fiction to a degree has a element of horror. You can call anything horror as it's a broad range subject and term. You can't call everything science fiction. Meaning you can find horror in almost any movie that has some sort of drama or suspense. You can't do that with Science Fiction, you can't liberally apply science fiction into movies because it fundamentally does not work. Example: Abyss has the same moments of horror, it's science fiction though. It's the same situation. Loss of Family, Tense Horrific situations, Grosse Imagery, Suspense. It's science fiction though. A lot of films fit into these Quasi Realms of Horror and Science fiction, but you have to look at other elements of horror to classify not just "it's scary". Is the imagery meant to disgust you such as The Thing and Event Horizon. Is there a supernatural aspect? Here's another, JASON X , it's Friday the 13th in Space. It has all the trapping of science fiction but it's a horror movie. Jason X is a horror movie, I don't think anyone would describe it as a Science Fiction movie. It has a supernatural element to it etc.. You most certainly can say WOTW is a science fiction film that uses suspense and is scary. It's not horror though, there's no element of supernaturalism ( even if you want to argue the divinity of man, you most certainly can, but that still doesn't make it a horror movie, as divinity of man is a common theme through out almost all science fiction. It's part of the genre and also it's not supernatural. A supernatural force doesn't cause the aliens to die, their brought low by hubris) edit: Alright I'll let this cat out of the bag. I don't think Silence of the Lambs or subsequent films are horror films. I don't like it when people say it's the only horror movie to win a oscar. I'm like NO! It's a loving suspense thriller. It just drives me crazy. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Apr 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Hollis posted:All science fiction to a degree has a element of horror. You can call anything horror as it's a broad range subject and term. You can't call everything science fiction. Meaning you can find horror in almost any movie that has some sort of drama or suspense. You can't do that with Science Fiction, you can't liberally apply science fiction into movies because it fundamentally does not work. You're swinging for the fences on your subjective idea of how to classify movies. So because Jason in Space is part of an established horror franchise, you would never call it Sci-fi....Even though it's an unstoppable killer on a spaceship in the future like Alien. And because the killer tripod aliens that suspensefully stalk, murder, capture and harvest humans for blood takes place on Earth, it's now solely a Science fiction movie because....why? Because they are aliens that have deathray laser beams and not machetes? Blockbuster and Redbox put these genres in their specific shelf because of generalization, that's not where you're supposed to approach it from in any type of film analysis. What you are trying to say is that because Observe and Report has Seth Rogen making a stupid face on the front of it and the trailer looks funny that it's just a comedy...That movie is a psychological horror.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
Mouser.. posted:You're swinging for the fences on your subjective idea of how to classify movies. So because Jason in Space is part of an established horror franchise, you would never call it Sci-fi....Even though it's an unstoppable killer on a spaceship in the future like Alien. And because the killer tripod aliens that suspensefully stalk, murder, capture and harvest humans for blood takes place on Earth, it's now solely a Science fiction movie because....why? Because they are aliens that have deathray laser beams and not machetes? Blockbuster and Redbox put these genres in their specific shelf because of generalization, that's not where you're supposed to approach it from in any type of film analysis. I'm not swinging for the fences when the movie I'm talking about is one of the first established Science Fiction Novels, has had multiple adaptations through out it's entire history and been made into multiple films and television series all of which are science fiction. Look at it this way Jason X is a Horror movie with Science fiction trappings like WOTW is a science fiction movie that has horror trapping. It can totally have that ,but it's still a science fiction movie just like Jason X is a horror movie. Jason X has multiple instances of following the horror formulae, a supernatural element, etc.. etc.. Also Observe and Robert is a black comedy. We have specific genre, with humour dedicated to films that are funny but contain dark or depressing or horrific material.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Hollis posted:I'm not swinging for the fences when the movie I'm talking about is one of the first established Science Fiction Novels, has had multiple adaptations through out it's entire history and been made into multiple films and television series all of which are science fiction. Your genre delegations are nonsensical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 00:18
|
|