Define "Horror"

[Kikabi]

Here's why I ask. I've been coming across some conflicting notions over what films are horror and what films aren't. In various threads, including one I started - "Do you consider these horror movies?" I've recieved conflicting answers. Some schmoes, for instance, consider Jacob's Ladder to be horror whilst others don't. Since that film is difficult to define, I can understand the conflicting responses. Which is why I asked about in the first place, along with several others, since I wasn't sure myself.

Other conflicting ideas about what are horror movies I've run across here: Many seem to think Ichii the Killer and Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky are horror films because they have lots of torture, violence and gore. They're not horror movies. Ichii the Killer is an extreme yakuza film. and Riki-Oh is an extreme martial arts crime/thriller. Torture and copious blood and guts does not a horror move make. Another is the Battle Royale films, which are action/thrillers, as I understand. On the other side of the spectrum, some people think The Village is a horror movie. It's not.

I wish that I had thought to save the URL, but, while looking for pictures of Selene from 28 Days Later, I found a review on some site that had started a comment debate. Apparently the reviewer didn't think 28 Days Later was a horror movie, but considered it a "post-apocalyptic" drama. Why? Because the characters aren't in constant peril from the zombies, who aren't a threat during large segments of the movie. He gave the shopping spree scene as an example. A commenter argued, civily, against him, pointing out same shopping spree occuring in Dawn of the Dead. Well, it all came down to the reviewer expecting non-stop peril in order for 28 Days Later to be considered "pure horror." It surprised me that anyone whouldn't think of 28 Days Later as a horror movie.

I also found a pretty interesting article on the web called from "From Silence to Splatter: http://www.moviecompound.com/features/features.php?featureid=52 He has a list of horror film you must see before you die or before you see another remake-reimaging, ect. I liked his list, but one surprised me: Lost Highway a horror movie?

Pertaining to this subject here, the author emphatically states that Urban Legend and I Know What You Did Last Summer are Not horror, although he doesn't give a reason why he doesn't consider these movies to be horror. Do you agree with him or not?

I suppose defining whether a movie can be considered a horror movie is sometimes a subjective thing. How do you define "horror" in general. What are the things that make a movie a horror movie from your perspective?

[Psychocandy]

Well i'm not sure that many people actually do believe that Ichi The Killer and Riki-Oh are horror movies. I think it's just that due to the gore and violence quota in both movies they appeal to a certain sub-section of horror fans and therefore get reviewed on websites devoted to the genre. But 28 Days Later is inarguably a horror movie and anyone trying to argue otherwise is clearly delusional. Lost Highway is a bit more tricky. Although I don't think it's pureform horror there are enough unsettling moments scattered throughout the movie (most of which are more alarming than what most actual 100% horror flicks can conjure up) for it to at least be clasified as what I call a hybrid flick. There are certainlly elements in the movie that I would class as horror. The other arguement i've used in the past is that horror movie fans seem to have a very limited idea of what can and should be classed as horror. I read a lot of short horror story anthologies and the net is cast far wider and deeper in the written form than it is in movie-land. At the end of the day it's down to individual interpretation because not everyone is scared of the same stuff. I have a female friend who gets scared at just about any horror movie i've ever thrown at her to the extent she refuses to watch any more genre movies.

[jagged halo]

Originally posted by Psychocandy
The other arguement i've used in the past is that horror movie fans seem to have a very limited idea of what can and should be classed as horror.

I don't think that's a fair comment at all, fans of the genre are not limited in any way shape or form, they take away what they get out of a horror film. As far as I'm aware there are no rules to this hobby of ours, so the idea that some films 'should' be classed as horror when fans have deemed them not to be, rings hollow in my ears. As you say it's down to individual interpretation.

Just my two cents worth;)

[countchocula]

To be fair, there is a monster at the end of Riki-Oh. I don't give much thought to what is or isn't "horror." If it appeals to the most narrow-minded genre fan, it could certainly be discussed on a horror message board (Donnie Darko, Mulholland Drive, etc.).

[!MorganOnyx!]

Hmm, define "horror"? Ok, "horror" is walking into a bedroom and catching your two best mates bumming!

No, seriously I'm with what COUNTCHOCULA and JAGGED HALO said. "Horror" is open to each individual's unique interpretation. One might consider THE GREEN MILE to be a horror film, another may call it a drama. To each their own and more importantly who cares as long as you get a morbid kick out of it?!! :D

[jagged halo]

That's the problem with putting labels on every god damn thing. Music's the same; Industrial, R&B, Rock and so on, it's a load of bollocks! it's music, end of story.

The Green Mile contains horrific elements, like the botched execution of Eduard Delacroix, does that make it a horror film? Fucked if I know because I honestly don't know what constitutes a horror film.

[Psychocandy]

Originally posted by jagged halo
I don't think that's a fair comment at all, fans of the genre are not limited in any way shape or form, they take away what they get out of a horror film. As far as I'm aware there are no rules to this hobby of ours, so the idea that some films 'should' be classed as horror when fans have deemed them not to be, rings hollow in my ears. As you say it's down to individual interpretation.

Just my two cents worth;)

I should probably have put the word "some" into that sentence. It wasn't really meant as a blanket statement covering all horror fans. But yeah...it is very much open to interpretation.

[jagged halo]

I watched Troll last week, does that come under Horror or Horrible?;) I agree with you though.

[Kikabi]

Originally posted by Psychocandy
. . . But 28 Days Later is inarguably a horror movie and anyone trying to argue otherwise is clearly delusional. . . . At the end of the day it's down to individual interpretation because not everyone is scared of the same stuff.

I think everyone else has been saying the same thing as the last part of you wrote. That it's up to the individual to define for him or herself whether a movie is horror or not. But you've contradicted yourself by stating that anyone who thinks 28 Days Later isn't a horror movie is delusional. What happened to "individual interpretation?"

True, not everyone is scared by the same things. But what if I posted "I just saw Saw and it didn't scare me at all. I don't see why people are calling a horror movie when it's clearly not." Would you just politely respond with "to each his own, it's a matter of individual interpretation" or would you quite rightly put me straight? That's a hypothetical, of course. On the other hand, Child's Play didn't scare me and I thought it was absurd, but I'm not going to argue that it's not a horror movie, because it is.

All genres have "rules" - better said, conventions. I just watched the documentary "Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of Slasher Movies." In that, they spell out the conventions of that sub-genre.

Anyway, I joke around a bit about being a freshman in Movie Horror High, just to let other schmoes know I'm not nearly as experienced in the horror genre as the majoriy of you guys are. But I do take it seriously, actually. So I do get confused when someone writes "I Know What You Did Last Summer and Urban Legend is not horror." It just makes me wonder, if that person thinks those horror movies aren't horror, then what does make a horror movie a horror movie.

Ah well, at least I know what makes a slasher movie a slasher movie. Which makes I Know What You Did Last Summer a slasher, doesn't it? And therefore, a horror movie. Why does that writer think it's not?

[yorrick brown]

i`ll look for 28 days later under the 'post-apocalyptic drama' section at blockbuster.

i mean for me i think 'irrevisable' is a horror movie,its violent and gorey but it ain`t in the horror section no its a 'drama'.

what about the new movie 'invasion' is that a horror or thriller.

[SweetEnLow]

I've seen some movies in the thriller section that I thought were horror and vice versa.

My friend said that to him, a horror movie is a movie where the impossible happens, like monsters, vampires, werewolves, ghosts. A movie like Silence of The Lambs according to him can happen and wouldn't be horror. But many people believe in ghosts...

Of course than there are the movies classified as sci-fi. I don't know, it's kinda hard to define horror. Maybe something that's meant to scare you, but sci-fi can do that as well.

[Kikabi]

Originally posted by yorrick brown
i`ll look for 28 days later under the 'post-apocalyptic drama' section at blockbuster.

i mean for me i think 'irrevisable' is a horror movie,its violent and gorey but it ain`t in the horror section no its a 'drama'.

what about the new movie 'invasion' is that a horror or thriller.

I'm sure Hollywood will label that a sci-fi thriller - they're loathe to call any movie a horror film, even when they're churning stuff out like Premonition and The Reaping specifically directed at horror fans. But I haven't seen Invasion and haven't heard much about it.

Irreversible's not in the foreign language section? Our foreign language section is a jumble of genres. If asian horror movies have a dub/sub choice, they're in the horror section, oddly enough.

Noticed that Identity's in the drama section. The Alien movies are in Action. So is Event Horizon. Does anyone get that that's a horror movie?

The funniest/strangest thing I saw today at the BB was that someone put Willow in the horror section. You'd think that it was just a patron who had picked it up and decided not to rent it, so just stashed it on whatever shelf was closest to him. Except, it was sitting right in the W section between things like Wolf Creek and The Wicker Man! I can't help but think someone was playing a joke! :D

[Kikabi]

Originally posted by SweetEnLow
I've seen some movies in the thriller section that I thought were horror and vice versa.

My friend said that to him, a horror movie is a movie where the impossible happens, like monsters, vampires, werewolves, ghosts. A movie like Silence of The Lambs according to him can happen and wouldn't be horror. But many people believe in ghosts...

Of course than there are the movies classified as sci-fi. I don't know, it's kinda hard to define horror. Maybe something that's meant to scare you, but sci-fi can do that as well.

Seen the same thing in stores and rental shops. I don't think we can trust the decision of store owners about where they place certain kinds of movies, like horror.

Once upon a time, even before I was born - not that I'm that old :D - horror, science fiction, and fantasy were all grouped under one lable: Speculative fiction. I've always liked that term, and the three genres have that in common - speculating about what might be possible or probable, and even what's impossible but still exploring the "what if" it could be.

If we take your friend's definition, then a lot of movies considered horror wouldn't be so - most slasher movies have psychotic serial killers, as the villians, after all. According to his definition, then The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Last House on the Left, Friday the 13th, and the Saw movies shouldn't be considered horror movies.

Anyway, I think Hollywood and people who say they don't like horror are in denial about movies like Slience of the Lambs and The Sixth Sense. Neither of them are in the horror sections. And people who would never watch a horror movie would be aghast at having to go into the horror section into order to buy or rent them. They're both horror movies. Sixth Sense is a ghost story. Silence of the Lambs is a psychological horror movie with a couple of very twisted serial killers.

Yes, there are a lot of hybrid Science Fiction/Horror movies or Horror/Fantasy. I think of War of the Worlds as a sci-fi/horror. H.G. Wells certainly meant for his story to be scary, and I think the recent movie gets pretty scary (and gorey).

[Kings-Rook1]

A knee jerk answer would be any film that creates fright or fear or terror or…horror in the viewer. Now everyone has their own opinions as to what is frightening, scary, terrifying and ultimately... horror.

Horror: The strong feeling caused by something frightful or shocking

[Kikabi]

Originally posted by Kings-Rook1
A knee jerk answer would be any film that creates fright or fear or terror or…horror in the viewer. Now everyone has their own opinions as to what is frightening, scary, terrifying and ultimately... horror.

Horror: The strong feeling caused by something frightful or shocking

I guess I'd alter that description to "Any film that's intentionally made to create fright, shock, terror, and/or have a chilling affect on the viewer." Or something along those lines.

Yes, people have their own opinions about what's frightening to them. But a person's opinion that "X" horror movie wasn't scary doesn't mean that person can justifiably say that "X" movie isn't a horror movie. I didn't find Child's Play scary, but it would illogical of me to say that it's not a horror movie just because, in my opinion, it's not scary.

[LordSimen]

I don't believe that a film in which the "impossible" happend is how you define a horror from a thriller, because that would imply a movie like Halloween wasn't a horror movie.

Personally, a horror movie is about the intent of the film. If the film's intent in it's creation is to shock, scare, frighten or horrify the audience, or the film's intention is to depict horrific events infront of the audience, then I consider it a horror movie.

This doesn't matter if someone didn't find "Hostel" or "Last House on the Left" scary, what matters is the intent of the filmmakers were to do that and that was the purpose behind the film.

As for genre blenders like Battle Royale or Devil's Rejects, I think the intent of both those films were also to shock and disturb the audiences with violent imagery, which also falls under the semi catagory of Horror as well, but that wasn't their MAIN genres so basically those just become a subgenre in which the films also fall under.

[Kings-Rook1]

LordSimen makes a good point with regards to the filmmakers "intent" and a films classification into a genre and or creation of a sub-genre.

[Kikabi]

Originally posted by LordSimen
Personally, a horror movie is about the intent of the film. If the film's intent in it's creation is to shock, scare, frighten or horrify the audience, or the film's intention is to depict horrific events infront of the audience, then I consider it a horror movie.

This doesn't matter if someone didn't find "Hostel" or "Last House on the Left" scary, what matters is the intent of the filmmakers were to do that and that was the purpose behind the film.

Yes, I agree. I think that's point I've been trying to make, but you've stated it much better. And it's why I was confused by the writer of that article I posted the link to was so emphatic about saying that I Know What You Did Last Summer and Urban Legend isn't horror.

Maybe because I'm new at this, and the writer's an expert (I guess), but it struck me as wrong that he not only believes those movies aren't horror movies, but encourages others to think the same way. But of course they're horror movies. As you say, that's the intent of the filmmakers. I haven't seen Urban Legends, but I Know What You Did Last Summer complies with the standard slasher conventions.

As for genre blenders like Battle Royale or Devil's Rejects, I think the intent of both those films were also to shock and disturb the audiences with violent imagery, which also falls under the semi catagory of Horror as well, but that wasn't their MAIN genres so basically those just become a subgenre in which the films also fall under.
I see what you mean about this. Thanks for the explanation. Although, I imagine some purists wouldn't see a movies like War of the Worlds as belonging in a horror sub-genre, although I do.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Kikabi

I see what you mean about this. Thanks for the explanation. Although, I imagine some purists wouldn't see a movies like War of the Worlds as belonging in a horror sub-genre, although I do.

Yeah, movies like War of the Worlds definitely have a little bit of horror in them, it's just the horror aspect usually takes the side stage while Science Fiction and Disaster Movie conventions tend to take the main stage. Which is why someone might find it weird if you call it a horror movie.

[Kikabi]

Originally posted by LordSimen
Yeah, movies like War of the Worlds definitely have a little bit of horror in them, it's just the horror aspect usually takes the side stage while Science Fiction and Disaster Movie conventions tend to take the main stage. Which is why someone might find it weird if you call it a horror movie.

Right, it's not a full-on horror movie by any stretch. But it contains many scenes where Spielberg intended to scare and/or at least raise the goosebumps the audience.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Kikabi
Right, it's not a full-on horror movie by any stretch. But it contains many scenes where Spielberg intended to scare and/or at least raise the goosebumps the audience.

Most definitely.

[hrdude]

In short a film that scares, revolts, or induces terror

[Kikabi]

Originally posted by LordSimen
Most definitely.
I love War of the Worlds in large part because of its horror aspects (and they didn't do something dumb and "Hollywood" by changing H.G. Well's elegant conclusion of the story.) But I know better than to use it in the horror guessing games like others do with Battle Royale and Ichi. ;)

[miceland1]

This is a great topic that I have been mulling over in my mind when we were discussing whether or not 2007 is a good year for horror.

I would agree that while many films fall short of the mark, they are trying to scare audiences the intent is to scare.

Right next door is a thriller or psychological drama. Some of them are definitely overlapping with Horror, but some not as much.

Psycho is one of the most important Horror movies of all time. but Vertigo I would say is a thriller or psychological drama.

Not that that one is any more scary than the other, just that Vertigo is a little different from horror movies. I guess its a Mystery.

Another example to get you all upset at me is Haunted Mansion the movie.

Is that a horrror movie? Its got all the trappings of one. the undead, spirits, suicide, hell ... Is the point of the film to scare audiences. I think yes. BUT I think the target audience is a kid. Is it still a horror movie if its supposed to scare kids or is it a "Family" movie now?

I myslef love Gothic Horror, castles, ball gowns, manners, dancing, morose woman and men, Edgar Allen Poe, Royalty . Are these movies scary? Not really. Are they menat to scare? Or are they meant to paint a feeling or emotion of Romanticism? Are they Horror? Yes but I don't think they fit the definition, they are included because they have traditionally been included.

I think Grindhouse as we care calling it now is another realted genre. I Spit on your Grave is normally considered Horror but these Revenge movies are more like Action. Is They Call Her One Eye Horror? How about Rambo or any of the Segal movies, if it is a woman's revenge is it Horror and Action if it is a man's revenge?

Sci Fi is another related genre. Forbidden Planet has a monster in it is that supposed to be scary. I don't know. I think its more weird and fantastic than scary but maybe it was supposed to be scary then.

How about Sean of the Dead? Its described by the writers as a spoof of Horror movies. I think its a Horror movie regardless of what they SAY. Its one of my favorites at that.

I think its a boolean set where horror intersects other genres with plenty of overlap. The great movies give you something that you do not expect and will entertain you in some way, Horror or something like it.

[Kikabi]

Good ol' Wikipedia gives this definition of horror - basic but useful. I think the most important word in this is designed. I would only add to the definition that horror movies are also often designed to disturb us in some fundamental way.

Horror films are films of the horror genre that are designed to elicit fright, fear, terror, disgust or horror from viewers. In horror film plots, evil forces, events, or characters, sometimes of supernatural origin, intrude into the everyday world.

I haven't seen Haunted Mansion, but I believe that a movie intended to scare children can be legimately considered horror. I think that Troll and The Lady in White - movies where kids are the heroes and nothing's graphic - are good movies to use to introduce kids maybe 8 years and up to horror.

Part of the appeal of Gothic Horror is the romanticism of the past of them. I love them too, because they're so atmospheric and depend more on chills than on boo-scares. I think you're talking about the old Gothic Horror classics, though. In their day, they did scare their audiences.

Just because most of them have become dated and modern audiences, by and large, have out-grown them doesn't mean they are no longer Horror movies. They deserve their traditional status. Modern Gothic movies are rare. I recently enjoyed Dead Birds, a flawed film that still packed a punch.

I'm not sure what "Grindhouse" movies really are. Have the torture-horrors taken their place? I suppose torture-horrors made to elicit disgust more than real scares. I haven't seen I Spit on Your Grave, but it's flip-side, The Last House on the Left didn't scare or horrify me as much as it disgusted and disturbed me.

I suppose I'm not the one to discuss this, but I understand that I Spit on Your Grave has a prolonged rape scene that must be quite disturbing to watch. But I do know that it is essentially a gory revenge movie, and you make a good point about women's revenge movies - hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and all of that - perhaps tapping into men's psycho-sexual fear. However, your argument loses ground to Kill Bill, Vol. 1 & 2, which no one considers a Horror movie.

[miceland1]

Originally posted by Kikabi


I suppose I'm not the one to discuss this, but I understand that I Spit on Your Grave has a prolonged rape scene that must be quite disturbing to watch. But I do know that it is essentially a gory revenge movie, and you make a good point about women's revenge movies - hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and all of that - perhaps tapping into men's psycho-sexual fear. However, your argument loses ground to Kill Bill, Vol. 1 & 2, which no one considers a Horror movie.

I am saying Kill Bill, One Eye, Spit on your Grave are related to but not necessarily Horror.

[BugMuffins]

Horror films are films of the horror genre that are designed to elicit fright, fear, terror, disgust or horror from viewers. In horror film plots, evil forces, events, or characters, sometimes of supernatural origin, intrude into the everyday world.

I don't think this actually goes far enough. For instance Jaws & Primeval, as well as at least 100 other high level suspense films are designed to elicit these basic feelings and they are sure as heck not horror films.

[Kikabi]

Originally posted by miceland1
I am saying Kill Bill, One Eye, Spit on your Grave are related to but not necessarily Horror.

That One Eye and Spit on Your Grave really shouldn't be considered Horror because they're basically bloody revenge movies.

I don't know if Forbidden Planet was supposed to be scary, but a lot of science fiction from the 50's and 60's played on people's Cold War fears and strayed into horror. So what was scary to people then isn't necessarily scary to us, since we don't have that context.

I love Shaun of the Dead, too. I don't think Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg have denied that it's a horror/comedy. Actually, I don't think you can spoof something without it being what you're spoofing. Just as Hot Fuzz is a cop-buddy movie spoofing cop-buddy movies.

[Kikabi]

Originally posted by BugMuffins
Horror films are films of the horror genre that are designed to elicit fright, fear, terror, disgust or horror from viewers. In horror film plots, evil forces, events, or characters, sometimes of supernatural origin, intrude into the everyday world.

I don't think this actually goes far enough. For instance Jaws & Primeval, as well as at least 100 other high level suspense films are designed to elicit these basic feelings and they are sure as heck not horror films.

I agree with you about Jaws, although you'll find a lot of folks around here who'll argue that it is a horror movie - essentially, a "monster" movie. Haven't seen "Primeval" because I heard it sucks. All I know is that it's considered a horror movie. Another monster movie.

On a side note, I'm very surprised that Predator is considered a horror movie. It has one gory scene that falls into the "disgust" part of that definition; other than that, it's an action/sci-fi flick.

Yeah, that definition doesn't go far enough - will we ever find a perfect definition? - just something basic as a starting point.

[miceland1]

I think you get my point though is that some movies are related to the Horror genre but they are not in my mind horror movies. Your millage may vary.

That's not to say don't watch them. They can be some of the most entertaining of all as they can serve you up some things in unexpected ways.

[Frank the Tank]

Anything that has me on the edge of my seat in a nervous wreck would count as horror to me. That's why I'd count Zodiac as horror. Same with Deliverance and Jaws. Disturbing morality films like Oldboy and Requiem For A Dream would count as horror to me as well, since the conclusions were so chilling.

I will agree that Ichi The Killer isn't a horror film. It's probably more of an Action/Thriller. Riki-Oh is an action film with Dead Or Alive amounts of gore.

Fuck, all the genre's blend together so much for me. It hurts my head to think about what is horror and what's not. I just put Horror/Suspense/Thriller/Sci-Fi all together in one category.

[Kikabi]

Originally posted by Frank the Tank
Anything that has me on the edge of my seat in a nervous wreck would count as horror to me. That's why I'd count Zodiac as horror. Same with Deliverance. Disturbing morality films like Oldboy and Requiem For A Dream would count as horror to me as well, since the conclusions were so chilling.

I think Deliverance is a hell of a scary movie! Anyway, at the end of the day, that's what really counts - what's got your eyes glued to the screne (or your eyes covered!) I know I can get too picky and I don't want to end up a purist saying that this horror movie you love so much isn't "true" horror or "pure" horror and that kind of shit.

But as a freshman exploring this vast genre with all the interesting varieties it offers, it helps to understand some of its boundaries. It's interesting to me to see other people's take on it. And I want to know why some people will say something like - as I wrote at the beginning of all of this - Urban Legend is not a horror movie.

I just saw Urban Legend, and some parts really got me, especially the beginning. So the ending is dopey, but it sure looked, acted, and felt like horror to me!

[BugMuffins]

I Love this club!!!! I have never seen so much intelligent consideration about movies. This "place" is fresh for certain.

FTT (Frank The Tank) I gotta say that you are spot on in your last few posts. I was intentionally pressing you for some personal dialog (insight) and can appreciate your expanse.

K (I can never remember how to correctly spell that name. lol!) I really enjoy your posts because of the way you remain aloof, kind of floating or hovering, and yet are very grounded. You do very well in forwarding discussion.

again, I am surprised as all...well, surprised at this forum. I put several movies in my NF rental queue today based on people's 2007 favorites. I remember one was called Wind Chill i believe.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally posted by BugMuffins

again, I am surprised as all...well, surprised at this forum. I put several movies in my NF rental queue today based on people's 2007 favorites. I remember one was called Wind Chill i believe.

Wind Chill was pretty good, but that's another one that can be argued if it is horror or not. I thought it was more of a Romance with ugly ghosts.

[Kikabi]

I've heard that Wind Chill is good, too. I wouldn't mind a romance with ghosts (as long as it's not something like "Ghost"!)

Yeah, BugMuffin, JoBlo is the coolest movie place around! We can have actual intelligent discussions here because there aren't any meatheads going "You like that movie?? You're obviously a MORON!!!!!!!" How refreshing not to deal with that kind of thing!

And thank you for the compliment. :)

[Frank the Tank]

Originally posted by Kikabi
I've heard that Wind Chill is good, too. I wouldn't mind a romance with ghosts (as long as it's not something like "Ghost"!)



It's not like Ghost, as their is some suspense. It's just mostly a slow paced character driven piece.

[Nightscare]

I pretty much go by what genre the studios release the film under. If they want to say it's horror, fine. If the want to say thriller, that's fine too. Outside of that, I'd have to say general consensus would be the only real way to go, but that's hardly an easily measurable thing in a lot of cases.
As far as post apocalyptic being a genre as apposed to a setting, I just don't agree with that at all.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by BugMuffins
Horror films are films of the horror genre that are designed to elicit fright, fear, terror, disgust or horror from viewers. In horror film plots, evil forces, events, or characters, sometimes of supernatural origin, intrude into the everyday world.

I don't think this actually goes far enough. For instance Jaws & Primeval, as well as at least 100 other high level suspense films are designed to elicit these basic feelings and they are sure as heck not horror films.

I most definitely consider Jaws a horror movie by the pure definition of horror.

[Kikabi]

Originally posted by LordSimen
I most definitely consider Jaws a horror movie by the pure definition of horror.

Have we come to a "pure definition of horror?" What is it?

It's true that the lines between suspense/thrillers and horror can become blurred. I think of Jaws as a suspense/thriller with definite horror elements. But I can also see why it can be considered a horror movie - a monster movie, if you will, with the shark as the monster.

I was thinking about how the lines can be blurred whilst watching What Lies Beneath. It's a suspense/thriler. But it also has a ghost who definitely effects things. Yet, I don't think anyone would consider it a horror movie.

Orignially posted by Nightscare
As far as post apocalyptic being a genre as apposed to a setting, I just don't agree with that at all.

Movies can be described as post-apocalyptic, but that doesn't make post-apocalypic movie a genre. You're right, it's a setting.

There's a horror sub-genre which one critic has labeled the "horror of Armageddon" - movies that deal with the fear of the end of the world/civilization in some fashion. George Romero's zombie movies fit in this sub-genre, for instance.

[BugMuffins]

Originally posted by Kikabi
Have we come to a "pure definition of horror?" What is it?

It's true that the lines between suspense/thrillers and horror can become blurred. I think of Jaws as a suspense/thriller with definite horror elements. But I can also see why it can be considered a horror movie - a monster movie, if you will, with the shark as the monster.



I was thinking about how the lines can be blurred whilst watching What Lies Beneath. It's a suspense/thriler. But it also has a ghost who definitely effects things. Yet, I don't think anyone would consider it a horror movie.



Movies can be described as post-apocalyptic, but that doesn't make post-apocalypic movie a genre. You're right, it's a setting.

There's a horror sub-genre which one critic has labeled the "horror of Armageddon" - movies that deal with the fear of the end of the world/civilization in some fashion. George Romero's zombie movies fit in this sub-genre, for instance.

Forgive me my respected colleague, but the blur part is just a nice way of saying: "if you call it Horror, it's Horror, if I call it Horror, it's Horror". I believe that you and I both agree that the term "Horror" means something specific. I will NEVER concede to the fact that movies like Deep Blue Sea, Jaws, Primeval, Lake Placid or Piranha are "Horror". I am sorry but they are CLEARLY not. They evoke fear, not horror. To me with respect to movies & stories, horror means to be transported past what are the fears associated with human mortality. A lack of control over one's destiny based on exaggerated threats made by common place nature do not constitute horror. Larger than average critters do not constitute monsters. That is unless we fall back on the old "perception is reality" agreement.

Actually, if logic enters the picture, "Horror" is a sub category of Fantasy just as is Science Fiction. Horror MUST be derived from fantasy. If not, as an exaggerated rational menace within the context of reality, it's just sensationalism. To allow for such dilutes "Horror" and is literally the reason for the downfall of original imaginings within it's context.

PLEASE forgive my preaching.

"we now return control of your television set to you"

[miceland1]

I agree that most Horror has a Fantasy base. Most of it (not to mention my favorite movies/films/novels/comic books) are heavily steeped in Fantasy.

Certainly the mainstays of Horror are this way. Dracula, Frankenstien, Wolf Man, Mummy. Anything anyone could list off as horror movies would think of.

But to say that if it is not Fantasy it follows that is not Horror is incorrect.

Psycho. No Fantasy there. Nothing that is impossible happens in this movie. Or even that Ed Gein movie that I hate. There is no shortage of Horror based on actual events. Some more faithful than others.

And yes, I know that the Ammityville Horror was a hoax as was the Exorcist. I am not counting those.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by BugMuffins
Actually, if logic enters the picture, "Horror" is a sub category of Fantasy just as is Science Fiction. Horror MUST be derived from fantasy. If not, as an exaggerated rational menace within the context of reality, it's just sensationalism. To allow for such dilutes "Horror" and is literally the reason for the downfall of original imaginings within it's context.

PLEASE forgive my preaching.

"we now return control of your television set to you"


Horror is not a sub genre of Fantasy or Science Fiction. It is of it's own major category and is not a sub genre of any other genre.

A horror movie can be a fantasy movie just as it can be an action movie. It is it's own genre.

Even if it is a sub genre of something, it sure as hell wouldn't be fantasy. It'd probably be Suspense in any case. However, personally, I consider Suspense a sub genre of horror and not the other way around.


Have we come to a "pure definition of horror?" What is it?

I have my own opinion on horror's definition that I've clearly stated earlier in this thread. That's my pure definition of horror. I'd rather not have to put "in my opinion" after every sentence. XD

[Kikabi]

I don't see the logic in considering Horror being a sub-category of Fantasy. And Science Fiction fans will have serious objections to the idea that Science Fiction is a sub-category of Fantasy, as well.

They are three separate genres, although the lines between them can and often do blur. We have many horror movies that are fantasy-based as well as SF-Horror.

I've noticed a trend - most noticable with zombie movies - away from the fantastical and towards the scientific. It used to be that zombies were in the real of magic, voodoo. Then George Romero came up with a scientific reason for zombification - radiation waves from space. 28 Days Later, it was a virus.

We even find some scientific rationalization for vampires now - in Vampires, it's considered a virus that's passed on. In Perfect Creatures, it's a genetic mutation. It's like there's a trend to take away the mystery and the fantastical away from some of our favorite horror creatures.

I'm sorry, I just realized I've wandered a little off topic.

I think what you're really going for, BugMuffin, might be what was once termed "Speculative" fiction. The term is from the good old days when the three genre weren't split up but were all found under this single genre. It's why magazines like Amazing stories would have stories from all three genres.

People recognized what all three have in common. They're speculative stories about "what could be" to "what is improbable or impossible" - the greatest "what if's" of them all. And "what could be" means exactly that - things that could happen in every day existence.

[BugMuffins]

Hey K
please go back and read my entire post. Thanks to the code system used in this forum (the TRUEST definition of horror I have yet come across :rolleyes: ) I royally screwed that one up. As a result I am pretty certain you missed the last paragraph's entire premise.

Please don't confuse the fact that I do not know that Fantasy is a type of story, just as is Science Fiction (BTW, Event Horizon is Sci Fi, not Horror, all the way dear) and assuredly Horror.

What I am saying is that without the element of Fantasy, there can BE NO "Horror" Simen can go on & on about Hostel or whatever movie and those are NOT Horror. They could happen tomorrow. Period. Just like Jaws minus the retarded boat scene at the end or Primeval or whatever. You must enter an absolute element of fantasy before a film or a story of any origin can be defined as REAL Horror. So therefore, guess what? FANTASY (as in literal definition, a story which does not constitute everyday reality) is prior to either Sci Fi or Horror. There is no denying this. This is logic. What don't you see?

Don't make the mistake of considering all that is not Folk Tale derived as being non-fantastic or not Fantasy. That is assuredly incorrect.

EDIT:

also, Science has been a mainstream portion of Horror since piratically day 1. Same with the themes of obsession and addiction.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by BugMuffins

What I am saying is that without the element of Fantasy, there can BE NO "Horror" Simen can go on & on about Hostel or whatever movie and those are NOT Horror. They could happen tomorrow. Period. Just like Jaws minus the retarded boat scene at the end or Primeval or whatever. You must enter an absolute element of fantasy before a film or a story of any origin can be defined as REAL Horror. So therefore, guess what? FANTASY (as in literal definition, a story which does not constitute everyday reality) is prior to either Sci Fi or Horror. There is no denying this. This is logic. What don't you see?


Friday the 13th Part 1, not horror? Texas Chainsaw Massacre, not horror? Last House on the Left, not horror? Scream, not horror?

No, my friend. There does not need to be an element of fantasy for a movie to be a horror movie. There needs to be an element of fantasy for a movie to be a FANTASY movie. There's a big difference. All a horror movie needs is the intent of scaring, disturbing, frightening or terrorizing the audience. Without that, it's not a horror movie.

What I am saying is that without the element of Fantasy, there can BE NO "Horror" Simen can go on & on about Hostel or whatever movie and those are NOT Horror. They could happen tomorrow. Period. Just like Jaws minus the retarded boat scene at the end or Primeval or whatever. You must enter an absolute element of fantasy before a film or a story of any origin can be defined as REAL Horror. So therefore, guess what? FANTASY (as in literal definition, a story which does not constitute everyday reality) is prior to either Sci Fi or Horror. There is no denying this. This is logic. What don't you see?

You can clearly deny this because HORROR does not need to be fantastic nor does it need to be science fiction in order to be horror. It just has to be SCARY, FRIGHTENING, GROSS, DISTURBING, and the like. That's what HORROR is about. Those are the elements which allow movies to enter the realm of horror. Not whether or not the serial killer in the film is a zombie.

As I've stated before, with your logic, every Friday the 13th movie before Part 5 would not be a horror movie. It wouldn't start being horror movies until part 6 where they turn Jason into a zombie. How the hell can you argue that? They're practically the same movies with the same concepts, just replace a deranged killer with a zombie. That's the only difference. That does not make it any more or less a horror movie.

[BugMuffins]

"As I've stated before, with your logic, every Friday the 13th movie before Part 5 would not be a horror movie. It wouldn't start being horror movies until part 6 where they turn Jason into a zombie. How the hell can you argue that? They're practically the same movies with the same concepts, just replace a deranged killer with a zombie. That's the only difference. That does not make it any more or less a horror movie."


Incorrect. Friday the 13th is firstly a SLASHER film which is a derivative of Horror. Not true or pure Horror. A slasher film is merely a black fantasy. Or in your opinion does a fantasy have to constitute a "Folk/Fairy Tale" like the movie Legend or TLOTR trilogy? This is the very reasoning that has brought "Horror" or the mistaken perception that one is viewing true "Horror" to such a PATHETIC current state of pseudo existence. Sorry, this is just good old school reality. Friday the 13th COULD NOT happen any day or everyday because of the ridiculous lack of scene to scene logistics. No, it is NOT realistic in the least. Ever notice how he is EVERYWHERE in an instance at just the perfect killing time? Besides, the most obvious and most extreme fantastic element contained in EVERY Jason flick is the fact that he is IMMORTAL. A supernatural characteristic last time I checked ;)

[BugMuffins]

"But to say that if it is not Fantasy it follows that is not Horror is incorrect.

Psycho. No Fantasy there. Nothing that is impossible happens in this movie. Or even that Ed Gein movie that I hate. There is no shortage of Horror based on actual events. Some more faithful than others."


I am admittedly in the public minority, but I proudly do not consider movies based on reality to be Horror. Sorry, but neither did many critics just 15-20 years ago. Most importantly, the DIRECTORS did not view themselves or their creations as being "Horror". In Hitchcock's case they were thought of (his only to possible candidates for Horror, the Birds & Psycho) as complex exercises in extreme suspense. The same is true with Cronenberg. He is all over the Net blatantly stating that what he does is NOT Horror. In this age of the retarded pseudo deity of IMDB and the quick effortless google mutated research (no, I am NOT likening that to anyone!) we have become lazy and ill conformitive. Psycho was in fact based on Hitchcock's fascination with Gein. This is an absolute fact. What makes this film any different than a film about Bonny & Clyde or Al Capone? What? Because a naturally retarded man ate, stuffed and made furniture & musical instruments out of people? So what! That was all just a criminal novelty with respect to the ultimate end result (he killed people) just as was his maternal based pathology. The ULTIMATE emotional invocation in Psycho is not horror, but rather primarily suspense with an ample portion of shock. This simply does not "stand up" to equate as "horror". Sorry, too much reality for that to be the case IMO.

With respect to Horror's non-reality orientation and the viewing experience: One has to struggle to regain memory of realities composure. That creeped out inner dialog that goes something like "look, I know that can't happen because such and such is just not real, but god am I ever terrified right now" Much like a person desperately out of breath trying to break free from an underwater strong hold. In my book it's simply not enough to be caught up in the story. I mean that the case with all good movies, right? It's "Calgon, take me away" or no deal. :p

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by BugMuffins
"As I've stated before, with your logic, every Friday the 13th movie before Part 5 would not be a horror movie. It wouldn't start being horror movies until part 6 where they turn Jason into a zombie. How the hell can you argue that? They're practically the same movies with the same concepts, just replace a deranged killer with a zombie. That's the only difference. That does not make it any more or less a horror movie."


Incorrect. Friday the 13th is firstly a SLASHER film which is a derivative of Horror. Not true or pure Horror. A slasher film is merely a black fantasy. Or in your opinion does a fantasy have to constitute a "Folk/Fairy Tale" like the movie Legend or TLOTR trilogy? This is the very reasoning that has brought "Horror" or the mistaken perception that one is viewing true "Horror" to such a PATHETIC current state of pseudo existence. Sorry, this is just good old school reality. Friday the 13th COULD NOT happen any day or everyday because of the ridiculous lack of scene to scene logistics. No, it is NOT realistic in the least. Ever notice how he is EVERYWHERE in an instance at just the perfect killing time? Besides, the most obvious and most extreme fantastic element contained in EVERY Jason flick is the fact that he is IMMORTAL. A supernatural characteristic last time I checked ;)

I consider Fantasy to be something that has fantastic elements that could in no way happen in reality. Friday the 13th has no such thing in it. It's just a girl with a psychological problem killing teenagers over her dead son. There's NOTHING fantastic about it. It's just cold, hard reality. He was not immortal in Friday the 13th part 2-4. In fact they kill him.

[BugMuffins]

Originally posted by LordSimen
I consider Fantasy to be something that has fantastic elements that could in no way happen in reality. Friday the 13th has no such thing in it. It's just a girl with a psychological problem killing teenagers over her dead son. There's NOTHING fantastic about it. It's just cold, hard reality. He was not immortal in Friday the 13th part 2-4. In fact they kill him.



"Friday the 13th has no such thing in it. It's just a girl with a psychological problem killing teenagers over her dead son."

Precisely why it is not a REAL Horror movie. You agree and have made my point specifically. End of discussion.

are you also telling me that fantasy cannot consist of what is not merely routine, day to day reality? That's BS. What does a person have to do to have a sexual fantasy? Imagine having sex with an alien?

If you are going to say that pure Fantasy as a film genre HAS to consist of non-reality, then you should be quick to step up and apply the same logic to pure Horror.

Face it. Slasher flicks are a derivative of the pure film art form that is Horror. Just as Suspense, Gore & Shock films can be.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by BugMuffins

are you also telling me that fantasy cannot consist of what is not merely routine, day to day reality? That's BS. What does a person have to do to have a sexual fantasy? Imagine having sex with an alien?

Your definition of a fantasy film qualifies under the word "fiction" and not "fantasy." Horror movies are fictional, yes, even Friday the 13th and Hostel, but that does not make them fantasy.

Precisely why it is not a REAL Horror movie. You agree and have made my point specifically. End of discussion.

What!? Friday the 13th NOT a horror film? WHAT!?

Friday the 13th is purely a horror film. It is NOTHING else. It has a group of teenagers going to work at a camp in the middle of nowhere (camp blood, I believe is the local name given to the camp) only to find themselves picked off one by one by someone which you do not see till the last 20 minutes. It has scares, it has suspense.


You know what other movie follows the same exact formula? Alien. A group of space truckers travel to a planet in the middle of nowhere and get picked off one by one by a creature which you do not see until the last 20 minutes. You know the only difference in plot between these movies is one is a slasher and the other is science fiction film. How does the fact that one's science fiction and one's more reality base change whether or not it's a horror film? The answer is it doesn't. Because horror does not need to be fantasy. It can be cold hard reality.

And even going by your OWN logic as to what "fantasy" can be, in regards to the movie Hostel, explain to me how an organization of people paying to kill people and basing the price of the people on their race has ANYTHING to do with reality, hmm?

[!MorganOnyx!]

Whilst I have been secretly enjoying this ongoing "discussion", I would like to throw my hat into the ring.

The definition of the word 'horror':

1. An intense, painful feeling of repugnance and fear. See synonyms at fear.
2. Intense dislike; abhorrence. A cause of horror.
3. Informal. Something unpleasant, ugly, or disagreeable.

I have edited the defintion strictly for relevance. I am aware that there have been many different ideas of what the word means over the last few hundred years and that "horror" as a movie genre can be interpreted in numerous ways by numerous people.

I'm just trying to take it back to the beginning and keep it simple. Surely the "tag" we have been using for years for our beloved genre derived from the ACTUAL word, 'horror'. If this is the case, (which I am 100% certain of) ANY film depicting ANY one or more examples of the three descriptions above can be regarded as a HORROR film.
;)

[BugMuffins]

Originally posted by !MorganOnyx!
Whilst I have been secretly enjoying this ongoing "discussion", I would like to throw my hat into the ring.

The definition of the word 'horror':

1. An intense, painful feeling of repugnance and fear. See synonyms at fear.
2. Intense dislike; abhorrence. A cause of horror.
3. Informal. Something unpleasant, ugly, or disagreeable.

I have edited the defintion strictly for relevance. I am aware that there have been many different ideas of what the word means over the last few hundred years and that "horror" as a movie genre can be interpreted in numerous ways by numerous people.

I'm just trying to take it back to the beginning and keep it simple. Surely the "tag" we have been using for years for our beloved genre derived from the ACTUAL word, 'horror'. If this is the case, (which I am 100% certain of) ANY film depicting ANY one or more examples of the three descriptions above can be regarded as a HORROR film.
;)


Now, we MUST by all that is fair & reasonable turn about, do the same thing with all movie genre titles, correct? Please give me the round about definition, just as you just did with "Horror", of fantasy. suspense, thriller & drama. Lets see how many lines based on singular word over view and multiple contextual definitions get painfully and even confusingly crossed.

Now my friends, as Lou Reed once said, are you beginning to "see" the light?

Horror is not a blanket term when used in the context of film genre description. If it is, ALL genres MUST BE, not just Horror. This is logic and undeniable reason. no?


PS. THANK YOU for continuing this discussion my FRIENDS. I was afraid I had offended someone. I have simply and quite clearly presented my eccentric and fringe arguments for why not all movies containing horror or disturbing or scary or nasty rabbits with big sharp pointy teeth are "Horror" :)

[!MorganOnyx!]

Originally posted by BugMuffins
Horror is not a blanket term when used in the context of film genre description. If it is, ALL genres MUST BE, not just Horror. This is logic and undeniable reason. no?

Yeah I partially agree. My intention was to point out that it's completely plausible for somebody to classify a film as a "horror" if they witness examples of those defintions. You're right that it's technically impossible to stamp a specific genre on a film when it may show elements of action, suspense, drama, horror etc. But it would also be very annoying for a filmmaker, producer, screenwriter or whatever to have to label a film as a concoction of many genres. So therefore the easiest way to make sense of it all is to brand the film within the simplistic confines of the genre the themes are heavily reliant upon. Take HALLOWEEN for example. Sure, the film exhibits drama, suspense, shock, action, you name it. But for the majority of the film the underlining theme is horror. So we call it a horror film.

I would say the general consensus around here feel the same way. We're currently discussing this in the 'GENERAL HORROR TALK' section of 'JACK'S HORROR HOUSE'.

We could always ask JOBLO and THE ARROW if they want to change the name to 'JACK'S FANATASY, SCI-FI, HORROR, SUSPENSE, THRILLER, SHOCK, GORE, EXPLOITATION, GRINDHOUSE, DRAMA, ACTION HOUSE'?

It is pretty catchy.

;)

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by BugMuffins
I have simply and quite clearly presented my eccentric and fringe arguments for why not all movies containing horror or disturbing or scary or nasty rabbits with big sharp pointy teeth are "Horror" :)

The bolded part of this sentence seems very contradictory. Not all movies containing horror are horror movies? :confused:

[BugMuffins]

Originally posted by !MorganOnyx!
Yeah I partially agree. My intention was to point out that it's completely plausible for somebody to classify a film as a "horror" if they witness examples of those defintions. You're right that it's technically impossible to stamp a specific genre on a film when it may show elements of action, suspense, drama, horror etc. But it would also be very annoying for a filmmaker, producer, screenwriter or whatever to have to label a film as a concoction of many genres. So therefore the easiest way to make sense of it all is to brand the film within the simplistic confines of the genre the themes are heavily reliant upon. Take HALLOWEEN for example. Sure, the film exhibits drama, suspense, shock, action, you name it. But for the majority of the film the underlining theme is horror. So we call it a horror film.

I would say the general consensus around here feel the same way. We're currently discussing this in the 'GENERAL HORROR TALK' section of 'JACK'S HORROR HOUSE'.

We could always ask JOBLO and THE ARROW if they want to change the name to 'JACK'S FANATASY, SCI-FI, HORROR, SUSPENSE, THRILLER, SHOCK, GORE, EXPLOITATION, GRINDHOUSE, DRAMA, ACTION HOUSE'?

It is pretty catchy.

;)

I pretty much think everyone has decidedly decided not to really think about what I have made very factually clear here. It seems as though all the proofs I have provided have been ignored or "danced " around. The meshing or inclusion of all the genre titles to describe a single movie was the very reason everyone needs to accept that there are more legitimate genres than just Horror, Fantasy, Drama, etc. The only real reason I brought up literal definitions is because you CANNOT use them to under sore the broad spread generalizations that their names imply to classify "this or that" as a suitable candidate within a specific genre. That's OK, I can gracefully "back down", but I did unequivocally prove my argument. No question. I understand it's a democracy and all, but in closing all I ask is that you accept the fact that fans will always be a majority and directors a minority. Who do you think is more qualified to specifically label a film, the writer/director of a film or the fan that appreciates his or her efforts?

Thanks,
The End (I promise) :)

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by BugMuffins
I pretty much think everyone has decidedly decided not to really think about what I have made very factually clear here. It seems as though all the proofs I have provided have been ignored or "danced " around. The meshing or inclusion of all the genre titles to describe a single movie was the very reason everyone needs to accept that there are more legitimate genres than just Horror, Fantasy, Drama, etc. The only real reason I brought up literal definitions is because you CANNOT use them to under sore the broad spread generalizations that their names imply to classify "this or that" as a suitable candidate within a specific genre. That's OK, I can gracefully "back down", but I did unequivocally prove my argument. No question. I understand it's a democracy and all, but in closing all I ask is that you accept the fact that fans will always be a majority and directors a minority. Who do you think is more qualified to specifically label a film, the writer/director of a film or the fan that appreciates his or her efforts?

Thanks,
The End (I promise) :)

Those genres you are speaking of are merely sub genres of the bigger genres. Slasher is a subgenre of horror. A shock gore film is also a type of horror film. It isn't a "tainted" and "unworthy" horror film, it is a horror film. That's the genre those subgenres fall under. Not Fantasy, which is not required to be a horror movie. At all. No one is dancing around it.

[BugMuffins]

Originally posted by LordSimen
Those genres you are speaking of are merely sub genres of the bigger genres. Slasher is a subgenre of horror. A shock gore film is also a type of horror film. It isn't a "tainted" and "unworthy" horror film, it is a horror film. That's the genre those subgenres fall under. Not Fantasy, which is not required to be a horror movie. At all. No one is dancing around it.

I promised Simen. Lets move on. :)