|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:I enjoyed a lot of this movie too, and to the extent I like any Halloween movies other than the original, I think his are kinda interesting. Like most big horror franchises, that one has a real bad signal:noise ratio, and when it's poo poo it's the least fun to watch because it's much more mundane/grounded than something like Nightmare or Hellraiser. I've said this a few times, but Zombie's take on Michael, at least in the first one, feels like he read one or two pop psych books about How People Become Psychopaths & Kill! and then made a script about it. It just doesn't work for Halloween, for me. H20 is terrible, though, yeah. I tried rewatching it in October and it was just painfully boring. Also, Mel, I think The Prowler is a really good slasher and deserves more recognition. The cyclical nature of murders occurring between generations and the killer's choice of military garb as a costume leaves some room for thought, and the shower kill is absolutely brutal.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Admittedly I didn't watch it because Halloween 2 was so loving bad I refused to ever see anything of his again Clearly you missed 50 Shades of Grey. That was an atrocity to my eyeballs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:That budget went all into the special effects it's like Corman said " you can have lovely actors and a great monster but you can't have both". That reminds me of an anecdote. One of the movies on the video nasties list, Nightmare...In a Damaged Brain! (available on Prime just as Nightmare, worth checking out for the grimy first act and some cool shots, I made a post about it a while ago in the last thread. Anyway it almost didn't get released due to how its special effects were advertised. They hired Tom Savini as a consultant briefly but then began advertising the film based around how Tom Savini did the effects and he sued them over it. That was only even attempted because even then to the typical moviegoer and VHS renter the effects people were the known quantity many folks would turn out for. And Savini knew better than to let his name get attached to effects work he wasn't directly involved in. The film was relatively much more notorious and popular in the UK because it fell into sorta odd territory where it was released in theaters with some cuts, but then the home video release was added to section 1 of the nasties list. So it had a long life in theaters and on VHS in the UK since it was something people could easily see that was also technically liable to be banned but not and also IIRC still pretty gory even in its cut form. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jan 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
I liked his first Halloween movie for ironically the reason most people hate it, the young Michael stuff. I thought it was interesting framing the origin of the character as being caused by the same cultural malaise that made the first film iconic when it came out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
I'm starting to get the impression that you either weren't there for the vhs horror boom of the 80s, or just don't understand it, but regardless are so proud of your turn of phrase "Arms Race of the Id" that you're determined to make us all notice. The boom was far from niche, being the topic of schoolyards and water coolers abound. Seeing the newest films was a right of passage, and as Hollis says trade magazines and posters and conventions were far huger then than now. Hollywood and film critics have always poopooed the idea of horror being worthwhile, but we probably wouldn't even have a thriving home video market were it not for spooks (and doodles, but this isn't a conversation about porn at the moment) I will say this, I agree with your thoughts on Eli Roth. He's a fantastic film historian when it comes to horror, but a dreadful filmmaker, usually vapid, crass, and derivative. I would say Hostel 2 is his only film that even approaches worth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:I'm starting to get the impression that you either weren't there for the vhs horror boom of the 80s, or just don't understand it, but regardless are so proud of your turn of phrase "Arms Race of the Id" that you're determined to make us all notice. The boom was far from niche, being the topic of schoolyards and water coolers abound. Seeing the newest films was a right of passage, and as Hollis says trade magazines and posters and conventions were far huger then than now. Hollywood and film critics have always poopooed the idea of horror being worthwhile, but we probably wouldn't even have a thriving home video market were it not for spooks (and doodles, but this isn't a conversation about porn at the moment Video Nasties were a type of VHS horror but not all VHS horror was the video nasty. You seem to be conflating the entirety of the VHS horror market with the specific genre within that market I am focusing on. For example, most major slashers don’t count as what I am talking about because they were specifically edited for a theatre release. I am looking at films which explicitly avoided any form of restriction or censorship to thrive wholly on the video market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Also, Mel, I think The Prowler is a really good slasher and deserves more recognition. The cyclical nature of murders occurring between generations and the killer's choice of military garb as a costume leaves some room for thought, and the shower kill is absolutely brutal. Oh yeah it’s def a really good slasher, even one of the best. I just don’t think it has anything that makes it artistically significant other than simply being a pretty good model of the genre.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
It's also worth pointing out though that WHO was releasing the film was just as important as WHAT was in the film. Like major studios even more so than today had a lot of clout with regard to how their films were judged by the MPAA and even certain countries so like it was really these independent producers and newly formed film companies that got hit hard with the ban hammer.Mel Mudkiper posted:I am not arguing that, I acknowledge all of that and agree. No I am saying that visual effects in of themselves are a art form and that those films have merit because of the art in those films. It may not be the type of thing you think of as art but it's art and what they're creating is art. Its in the classical tradition of the Grand Guignol theater. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jan 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Video Nasties were a type of VHS horror but not all VHS horror was the video nasty. You seem to be conflating the entirety of the VHS horror market with the specific genre within that market I am focusing on. I don't know if this is a reasonable stance when Friday the 13th Parts 1 and 2 (as well as several other slashers and even horror movies like The Thing all of which were absolutely 100% designed with a theatrical release in mind) are on section 3 of the video nasties list. It might make more sense to look at the video nasties in terms of how they were reacted to in the UK itself instead of saying "I am looking at films which explicitly avoided any form of restriction or censorship to thrive wholly on the video market," which I think ignores how different standards for restricting content can be depending on what part of the world you're in. Many of these movies, as an example, were released uncut or with minimal cuts in the US compared to being banned outright in the UK. It might be more productive to look why each was potentially banned (animal cruelty in particular and violence against women were taken much more seriously in the UK than in the US at the time as an example) or prosecuted in the UK vs. how they were released elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:. It might be more productive to look why each was banned (animal cruelty in particular and violence against women were taken much more seriously in the UK than in the US at the time as an example). Go for it
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Go for it Have we been helping you do a homework assignment this whole time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:It may not be the type of thing you think of as art but it's art and what they're creating is art. And I am the one accused of being absolutist in my opinions
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Have we been helping you do a homework assignment this whole time? Everyone is welcome to post and write about what they find significant but I have no interest in writing about what someone else thinks is significant. If you think your idea is more meaningful, you are invited to offer it. But I am not gonna post stuff I don’t care about because you think I should.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
Mel, baby, you really need to work on your debate skills. Any time someone rebuts you in the thread your response is either A. A coomentless quoting of yourself with zero elaboration that makes you look like a weirdo that doesn't understand basic conversation ability, B. Insisting the person instead write some big long essay for your sole benefit, often ignoring when well researched effortposts are already made, or C. Pretend the person was making a completely unrelated point and attempt to respond to that instead. There are several people in this thread already I happen to know are deeply invested in the topic from serious, scholarly perspectives, but your myopic navel-gazing approach is doing anything but foster healthy discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
If people are interested in the climate and culture of the time that gave rise to the video nasties phenomenon, then I would suggest getting hold of a copy of See No Evil by David Kerekes and David Slater. It goes into how it all started with the rise of VHS in the home giving greater access to films and the moral panic that surrounded the films that was then exploited by people for their own agendas. Most of the films that ended up on the DPP's list got there for purely arbitrary reasons, such as having a title that someone thought sounded dodgy (Human Experiments) or having the word "Cannibal" in the title (Cannibal Man), rather than for any scenes of extreme gore or anything like that. The BBFC had their big no-nos (blood on breasts and eye injuries being two of the big ones) but a lot of the films on the list didn't even have them - someone just saw them and decided they didn't like the look of them, so onto the banned list they went.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
Sareini posted:If people are interested in the climate and culture of the time that gave rise to the video nasties phenomenon, then I would suggest getting hold of a copy of See No Evil by David Kerekes and David Slater. It goes into how it all started with the rise of VHS in the home giving greater access to films and the moral panic that surrounded the films that was then exploited by people for their own agendas. Very interesting, thanks. Edit: this David Kerekes guy seems to have a lot of books that take a look at the genre in a way that’s interesting to me. Good rec. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:And I am the one accused of being absolutist in my opinions That's not absolutism. That's a thing everyone else recognizes as an art. That's why we refer to people as Special Effects Artists and Make Up Artists and Graphic Artists. Its why we give out awards and recognize that as a art form. This isn't some concept that I just suddenly discovered. There's a whole special effects culture with magazines , videos, classes , you name it dedicated to the art of special effect make up and that very specific style of practical effects. You're arguing that in of itself is not a art form and that it is just a technical aspect of film making. When part of horror culture is in fact the art behind the special effects and what you see on screen. It's what makes The Thing , The Thing. It's what makes Evil Dead Evil Dead. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:That's not absolutism. That's a true thing. That's why we refer to people as Special Effects Artists and Make Up Artists and Graphic Artists. Its why we give out awards and recognize that as a art form. This isn't some w concept that I just suddenly discovered. I have already said I agree that it’s an art form. My issue is the assertion that because an element of a film has artistry the film itself is elevated as art. I disagree with this assertion and you don’t seem to recognize that this is the nature of my disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I have already said I agree that it’s an art form. My issue is the assertion that because an element of a film has artistry the film itself is elevated as art. I disagree with this assertion and you don’t seem to recognize that this is the nature of my disagreement. Yeah, and you're wrong because there's entire magazines and culture dedicated to the art of special effect make up in horror movies and horror movies at the time were marketed because of the special effects not because of the story. Similar to the B Movie monters of the 50s. That is the art of those films. Then you think that theatrical productions in the tradition of Grand Guignol are not art which is a weird thing to say. Cause that's a long recognized art form and theatrical style.Their not breaking new ground. This poo poo has been done for literally centuries now. I mean if you wanna go down the road of arguing its comparable with pornography go ahead, but like you are way out of your depth it seems on knowing the background of these films and the artists behind them. These are displays of someone art form. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I mean if you wanna go down the road of arguing its comparable with pornography go ahead, but like you are way out of your depth it seems on knowing the background of these films and the artists behind them. . I would argue they are art of the same type. Why are you arguing pornography is artistically irrelevant? I also find it offensive to be accused of knowing nothing about the topic simply because I disagree with you. At literally no point have I insulted anyone in this thread or suggested anyone is lacking in requisite knowledge of the topic. The only reason you think I don’t know as much as you is because I have a different conclusion. If you want to turn this into a dick measuring contest of cinema history we can, but I do not see how it is relevant. If you are incapable of handling disagreement without it becoming a personal issue, that’s on you. EDIT: In addition, if we are going to make cross medium comparisons, I would argue Video Nasties have more in common with EC comics or internet pornography than Grand Guignol. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
You've created your own definition of video nasties and are trying to I dunno explain that they proliferated because of I dunno some sort of ID or capitalism ( which is true for some not for others). You're ignoring a whole facet of horror fandom and of film appreciation. You're ignoring companies like Toe Biter or Audgust Underground and films like the Guinea Pig series and saying that's not a art form or a artist creating work when. There are people who specifically seek out that kind of art. You ignore films like Nekromantik and The Burning Moon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Yeah, and you're wrong because there's entire magazines and culture dedicated to the art of special effect make up in horror movies and horror movies at the time were marketed because of the special effects not because of the story. Similar to the B Movie monters of the 50s. Okay, but he's agreeing with you on this. He has said he agrees several times. What is wrong with someone saying that they can see and appreciate the artistry of Pumpkinhead's creature design but that doesn't mean they like and appreciate Pumpkinhead the film as art? That isn't the fault of the viewer. That's literally how he sees the film. If you decide that Pumpkinhead's creature design alone makes it worthwhile as a piece of art, you are also correct in that assertion. You are upset because you both appreciate the same things, but you assign the appreciation to the film as a whole, where Mel says the whole is flawed, but he likes the parts. I don't think that's anything to be upset about. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
Because the special effects in those films is the artistry and it's trying to break a film into it's elements it's like saying cinematography is not a art but writing is. There's multiple films and companies that exist to showcase films that are just vehicles for visual effects artistry. Film can be considered a visual and emotional medium of art or both. It doesn't have to solely be intellectual to be art. It's just a very stringent view and classification of art.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:You've created your own definition of video nasties and are trying to I dunno explain that they proliferated because of I dunno some sort of ID or capitalism ( which is true for some not for others). Yes and I have never said otherwise. I am presenting my perspective on the nature of these films success. Hollismason posted:You're ignoring a whole facet of horror fandom and of film appreciation. I'm not ignoring them, I am focusing on something else. I am not trying to create a comprehensive history of every kind of extreme film of every era and culture. I am analyzing how elements of economics and technological innovation contributed to a specific subset of film-making and how those elements made them uniquely interesting artistically. The whole reason I keep saying "post your own ideas" is because I never claimed to be the objective and absolute voice on the films. I only have my own perspective that I am exploring. If you have an alternative perspective, you are completely free to present it. Instead, you keep getting upset because I don't share your perspective. Franchescanado posted:Okay, but he's agreeing with you on this. He has said he agrees several times. Thank god I was becoming genuinely worried that I was making no sense to anyone
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
Yes but your argument is that they're solely artistic for your reasons when in fact they were art before you came along to explain it to everyone. This was art before you came along and explained it was art.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:10
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Yes but your argument is that they're solely artistic for your reasons when I fact they were art before you came along to explain it to everyone. I feel like you have constructed an entirely antagonist facsimile of me and have confused which one is which Hollismason posted:This was art before you came along and explained it was art. No one is explaining why it is art. I am presenting an analysis. I am not coming down from Olympus with the fire of art and bestowing it upon the mortals. I am going "here is a sub-genre I find artistically interesting, here is why, if it doesn't do this, I don't find it as interesting or meritorious."
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Because the special effects in those films is the artistry and it's trying to break a film into it's elements it's like saying cinematography is not a art but writing is. But no one is disagreeing with this, and you're upset with Mel as if he is, only because he's not willing to say that it, for him as a person with his own opinions separate from you, he does not reach that same conclusion. Which isn't a problem. I don't think The Dark Crystal is a good movie, for instance, but I can still say that the puppetry is masterful and influential. As for the specificity of what qualifies as a Video Nasty and the definition of the term, that's a different argument worth of debate, or agreeing to disagree. Hollismason posted:Yes but your argument is that they're solely artistic for your reasons when in fact they were art before you came along to explain it to everyone. He can only post about his reasons for liking it, though, Hollis. He's not trying to teach you what is and isn't art, he's only writing his own conclusions. He's writing with an authoritative voice, but it's only being used in his opinions and interpretations of things (artistry of aspects of film). I agree with you that a Video Nasty is a very specific thing, so arguing that point is different, but as Neo Rasa has already taken the time to mention in their post how different films were made Video Nasties for many different reasons, not following any particular logic. And you should clarify and elaborate on those points, because the facts of that stuff are interesting and important, but there's no reason to get mad that they view artistry different than you. You wouldn't want someone getting mad at you and saying you're wrong for how you rank the Friday the 13th films--it's completely subjective. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I don't think The Dark Crystal is a good movie, for instance, but I can still say that the puppetry is masterful and influential. Yeah, I can acknowledge that elements of a film are historic or important or significant, but for me a really great piece of art exists in a way that is holistically interesting and provocative. Its why, to use a non-video nasty example, I find Videodrome much more artistically interesting than The Fly. The pacing, plot, acting, and imagery of The Fly is better, but Videodrome as a cohesive narrative whole has much more to say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:He can only post about his reasons for liking it, though, Hollis. He's not trying to teach you what is and isn't art, he's only writing his own conclusions. He's writing with an authoritative voice, but it's only being used in his opinions and interpretations of things (artistry of aspects of film). As I said in the OP, I am working with a kind of frankenstein terminology for which Video Nasty is the closest approximation and I can get how its kind of ambiguous. I use it as a catch-all term for films in the early era of VHS which used the new economic opportunities of the video market, and near total lack of regulation and oversight, to create progressively more extreme and provocative imagery in order to control very, comparatively, small parts of the overall cultural and film landscape. I am not sure if you can definitively say, "THIS IS/THIS ISN'T" which is why I am mainly sticking to the genre as a social phenomenon, or focusing on specific films that are nearly inarguable in their inclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
You just move goal posts. If your only goal is to say I have created my own category of films that I have also defined and then explain why these films but those others are specifically artistic because of this reason and that reason only you just are in a circular logic. When I can point to multiple films in that category of "video nasties" that you've created that have artistic merit beyond what your claiming. Like your argument seems to be that there's this intrinsic artistic value because of ...reasons. I'm saying that's already art you can add to it and say yeah they're also artistic for these reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:You just move goal posts. If your only goal is to say I have created my own category of films that I have also defined and then explain why these films but those others are specifically artistic because of this reason and that reason only you just are in a circular logic. When I can point to multiple films in that category of "video nasties" that you've created that have artistic merit beyond what your claiming. We have different definitions and criteria for deciding what is artistically interesting. You are unclear about what my position is because you keep demanding that I agree with yours. I dont find the argument that "artistry was involved in the production" = "film is art" to be particularly convincing. No matter how many times you point to magazines, fanbases, or job titles, I am not convinced. You can try to make your argument in a different way, agree to disagree, or just let it go. Getting angrier as I continue to not agree is not at all productive. EDIT: Like, if you want to take the post-structuralist route, all produced media is art. I certainly agree with this perspective. But, if we are taking that perspective, even the phone book is art. A restaurant menu is art. Again, I agree with this perspective and certainly practice it. However, if we are using art in the way to say "aesthetically or philosophically significant", then I think our criteria because much more strict. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
Well yeah if you ignore all evidence to the contrary sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
That makes no sense I said I don't find your argument convincing, and your response is "because you are ignoring the evidence" How am I even supposed to respond to that
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
I sympathize about the thread discussion turning kind of frustrating, OP, but well, that's the kind of thing you flirt with whenever you try to take an already existing term and subject and try to funnel all discussion about it through your own specific proprietary definition. Don't take it personal, lots of smart people do this kind of thing from time to time (ask any university's liberal arts department). On that note, I was prepared for some sort of scathing moral assessment of Eli Roth from the title "a loving disgrace" rather than him just being a bit of a clueless hack. Does making lame movies qualify someone as a disgusting person in your eyes or was it hyperbole - you sound pretty serious in your posts so it honestly didn't read to me like the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
lizardman posted:I sympathize about the thread discussion turning kind of frustrating, OP, but well, that's the kind of thing you flirt with whenever you try to take an already existing term and subject and try to funnel all discussion about it through your own specific proprietary definition. Don't take it personal, lots of smart people do this kind of thing from time to time (ask any university's liberal arts department). Yeah, a lot of this stuff, as I mentioned, was recycled from essays I had worked on over the years. I recognize the sort of authoritativeness of the tone probably came from there and the overall style of critical theory analysis. Live and learn. It was a bit of column A and a bit of column B. I find someone masquerading as an artist to be genuinely offensive, but I probably would not go as far as to call him a loving disgrace being completely serious. More realistically, I just find him to be a tedious pretender.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 06:01
|
|