"Oh that's just because critics don't like horror movies." [Archive]

Quigles

09-06-2007, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by FatSakHead
Not as much as they received negative
You're half right, and just barely. HOSTEL and WOLF CREEK both garnered more positive reviews than negative, and SAW and HOSTEL: PART II were no more than 4% off a piece.

Personally, I completely agree with this rant.

Horror is a very subjective genre, and it's so easy to make a shitty horror film. Critics used to be instantly negative towards them, but that's not at all true anymore. If a horror movie is a good, it will be reviewed as such.

Originally posted by LordSimen
You won't even find a horror movie with a 90% tomato rating unless that movie is reviewed in retrospect. I firmly believe that horror movies, much like action movies, are reviewed much harsher from critics than other movies are. It's why you hardly see a movie in either category winning an oscar. Although, when it does happen, it is a glorious sight to behold.
That is such a crock of shit.

First of all, hardly ANY movies get over 90% on the Rotten Tomatoes scale, because hardly any movies deserve it. Horror and action get graded just like any other genre, but because the average film from those genres tends to be more lacking in intelligence than others, they end up getting a higher percentage of negative reviews. However, actual quality action and horror films DO get very positive reviews, as evidence by 28 Weeks Later and The Descent, as well as The Bourne Ultimatum (which did get over 90%).

And don't involve the Oscars in this, since that's a completely unrelated issue.

Originally posted by LordSimen
Because not many critics are fans of the horror genre in general. They are overly critical and harsh to horror movies and in the rare case a horror movie does shine for them they call it a "thriller."
Where the hell are you getting this? Are you implying the 126 reviewers who gave The Descent a positive review didn't actually like the movie? Or are you implying that no critics consider it a horror film?

I don't even think that's debatable.

Face it: critics do like horror films, as long as they're good. If you want, I can put up a list of highly praised horror films from the past five years to prove my point.

LordSimen

09-06-2007, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Quigles

That is such a crock of shit.

First of all, hardly ANY movies get over 90% on the Rotten Tomatoes scale, because hardly any movies deserve it. Horror and action get graded just like any other genre, but because the average film from those genres tends to be more lacking in intelligence than others, they end up getting a higher percentage of negative reviews. However, actual quality action and horror films DO get very positive reviews, as evidence by 28 Weeks Later and The Descent, as well as The Bourne Ultimatum (which did get over 90%).

This year: 30 movies broke the 90% mark.

Horror: 1 (The Host)
Action: 1 (Bourne)

2006: 50 movies broke 90% mark.

Horror: 0
Action: 1 (Casino Royale)

2005: 36 movies broke 90% mark.

Horror: 0
Action: 0

2004: 51 movies broke 90% mark.

Horror: 0
Action: 1 (Spider-man 2)

See what I'm getting at here? Horror and action, while not descriminated as much as they were in days past, are still to this day graded much harsher by many critics. This is why a movie like The Descent, a utter horror masterpiece, ends up with an 85%, when it deserves something more along the lines of 90 something percent.

A crock of shit? No. I believe not. There is a pattern to these things.

Originally posted by Quigles

Where the hell are you getting this? Are you implying the 126 reviewers who gave The Descent a positive review didn't actually like the movie? Or are you implying that no critics consider it a horror film?

I don't even think that's debatable.

Face it: critics do like horror films, as long as they're good. If you want, I can put up a list of highly praised horror films from the past five years to prove my point.

A movie like the Descent, in my opinion, deserves a much higher rating than a simple 85%.

Face it: Critics like horror films slightly more than they did in the past, but there is still a strong number who do still treat them harshly. I could point out numberless amounts of horror films who have been unfairly praised in the past and deserve much higher ratings than they get. Critics prefer dramas and thrillers.

Cop No. 633

09-06-2007, 11:39 PM

As much as I am a fan of horror, I have to admit most of them suck. The problem is that many directors just don't know the genre (seeing horror films just ain't enough) and that's why we get shit like the new remakes, TCM, Halloween, Hitcher, When A Stranger Calls, Black Christmas... the directors think that just because they know the old films, they're qualified to direct these new takes, but I'm sorry, it just doesn't work like that.

I think newbie directors make the mistake of thinking that horror and comedy are easy genres, when in reality, I'd say they're the hardest genres to pull off effectively because it's very hard to make a film that will stand the test of time. Many films nowadays work in their era, but after a few years they lose their impact because the directors were too focused on the superficial details such as gore, boo scares, kills, instead of characters, plot, theme, music, etc... it's all backwards I think when it comes to these new directors.

I love horror, but I really wouldn't blame critics for the state that it's in at the moment. The majority of the horror films nowadays are plain boring or cheesy. They don't tap into the subconscious. The old school films used to do this... I still some times will get a nightmare that's influenced by an old film like Dawn of the Dead or Halloween or Exorcist or Pet Sematary... they at least tried to get into the head of the viewer rather than the superficial, "Let's scare them with tons of kills!" So until these directors grow up, I don't see horror getting out of its rut.

Of course, that's not to say that there aren't any good filmmakers left. I'm still waiting for Brad Anderson to do another horror film... Session 9 was a special little flick (I dug the hell out of the Machinist, too). David Lynch creates hybrid films that incorporates horror which I always dig. Neil Marshall I think still has some things to learn, particularly writing, but he's got a good visual style so I can see him growing as a filmmaker. Even Eli Roth has his own stamp that I'll keep an eye out for... I like how he keeps it simple. Most horror films are over produced. They look too good to be grimy or they try to hard to look grimy.

Quigles

09-07-2007, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
This year: 30 movies broke the 90% mark.

Horror: 1 (The Host)
Action: 1 (Bourne)

2006: 50 movies broke 90% mark.

Horror: 0
Action: 1 (Casino Royale)

2005: 36 movies broke 90% mark.

Horror: 0
Action: 0

2004: 51 movies broke 90% mark.

Horror: 0
Action: 1 (Spider-man 2)
You're looking at it completely the wrong way. Here, do this: make a list of action and horror movies from those years that you think SHOULD have over 90% ratings. Now compare them with the other 90% movies.

Let me see the results.

See what I'm getting at here? Horror and action, while not descriminated as much as they were in days past, are still to this day graded much harsher by many critics.
That's not true. The reason why there are more poorly reviewed action and horror films than other genres is because the there are more poor action and horror films. Those two genres oftentimes forgo story and character development for mindless explosions and gore, respectively. But even then, if the film is good at what it does, it will get positive marks. For reference, see: Shoot 'Em Up, Transformers, Hostel, Hatchet, Black Sheep, etc.

See? Even critics can appreciate a little mindlessness if it's done well.

This is why a movie like The Descent, a utter horror masterpiece, ends up with an 85%, when it deserves something more along the lines of 90 something percent.

A movie like the Descent, in my opinion, deserves a much higher rating than a simple 85%.
So because you believe it deserves higher than an 85%, it does? What kind of logic is that?

For the record, I personally believe the film is worthy of a 90% rating, but that doesn't make it right. It's an opinion, and obviously some people didn't like the movie. This makes sense, seeing as how the horror genre is even more subjective in its appeal than comedy. Doesn't mean critics are biased against it, but simply that there is content in the production that is sure to turn some people off. The fact that this is reflected in reviews is actually a good thing, because it allows for a nice mirror to audience reaction.

Furthermore, action and horror films actually get more negative reactions from VIEWERS, not just critics. This once again goes back to subjectivity, and not bias.

Face it: Critics like horror films slightly more than they did in the past, but there is still a strong number who do still treat them harshly. I could point out numberless amounts of horror films who have been unfairly praised in the past and deserve much higher ratings than they get. Critics prefer dramas and thrillers.
No, critics prefer GOOD dramas and thrillers.

And to make another point, the reason why dramas get better reviews than most action and horror films is because of how the film business is set up. Since dramas cater to a more sophisticated crowd than, say, the type that would see CAPTIVITY or WAR, it's harder for stupid dramas to get off the ground than it is for stupid action or horror films. Thus, the dramas that get backing from studios are only the ones they think have a chance to succeed (meaning, they have to be intelligent). Meanwhile, dumb horror and action films are made constantly, since the demographic they're directed to will usually eat it up regardless. There's less of a desire on the studios part to insure a "quality" production when it comes to action or horror.

LordSimen

09-07-2007, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Quigles
You're looking at it completely the wrong way. Here, do this: make a list of action and horror movies from those years that you think SHOULD have over 90% ratings. Now compare them with the other 90% movies.

You're asking someone who prefers horror films over every other type of film to compare the best horrors to the best films, you're not exactly going to get the response you're looking for.

Originally posted by Quigles
That's not true. The reason why there are more poorly reviewed action and horror films than other genres is because the there are more poor action and horror films. Those two genres oftentimes forgo story and character development for mindless explosions and gore, respectively. But even then, if the film is good at what it does, it will get positive marks. For reference, see: Shoot 'Em Up, Transformers, Hostel, Hatchet, Black Sheep, etc.

See? Even critics can appreciate a little mindlessness if it's done well.

But not as many critics who can enjoy the other films, and that's what I'm saying. An excellent horror film will get an 85% while an excellent drama will get a 92%. Yes, those films were widely received. and did get excellent reviews. But they were stopped from getting as good as the other films because they were horror and action films.

Originally posted by Quigles
No, critics prefer GOOD dramas and thrillers.

A mediocre drama will get a better grade than a mediocre horror movie any day. I also highly doubt that a panned drama movie will ever be labeled as "pornography" by critics like the horror genre has had to endure for years, including recent years.

So because you believe it deserves higher than an 85%, it does? What kind of logic is that?

For the record, I personally believe the film is worthy of a 90% rating, but that doesn't make it right. It's an opinion, and obviously some people didn't like the movie. This makes sense, seeing as how the horror genre is even more subjective in its appeal than comedy. Doesn't mean critics are biased against it, but simply that there is content in the production that is sure to turn some people off. The fact that this is reflected in reviews is actually a good thing, because it allows for a nice mirror to audience reaction.

Furthermore, action and horror films actually get more negative reactions from VIEWERS, not just critics. This once again goes back to subjectivity, and not bias.

Yes. Because I believe it I believe it does, how does that not make sense? If I believe something then surely I do believe that something I believe.

If Action and Horror movies get more negative reactions from viewers, explain to me why people will constantly complain about the dumbing down of society and that people don't want smart films but rather dumb films.

Originally posted by Quigles

And to make another point, the reason why dramas get better reviews than most action and horror films is because of how the film business is set up. Since dramas cater to a more sophisticated crowd than, say, the type that would see CAPTIVITY or WAR, it's harder for stupid dramas to get off the ground than it is for stupid action or horror films. Thus, the dramas that get backing from studios are only the ones they think have a chance to succeed (meaning, they have to be intelligent). Meanwhile, dumb horror and action films are made constantly, since the demographic they're directed to will usually eat it up regardless. There's less of a desire on the studios part to insure a "quality" production when it comes to action or horror.

Yes. There is a reason they prefer dramas and thrillers, because those kinds of films are the films they prefer. They aren't the kind of people like me, or like the guys at Bloody Disgusting, or like Arrow, for example, who love the gritty violent movies. Critics grade those kinds of movies much harsher than they would grade a drama and thriller because it is not the kind of film they particularly enjoy as much as the dramas. Just because there is a reason for why the bias exist does not change the fact that it does exist.

Quigles

09-07-2007, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
You're asking someone who prefers horror films over every other type of film to compare the best horrors to the best films, you're not exactly going to get the response you're looking for.
But this already proves a vital flaw in your logic. If you can't even show examples of what horror films SHOULD be getting over 90%, then you're basically arguing that you want critics to be biased IN FAVOR of horror and action films instead of just being fair to all films equally.

Saying a movie didn't get a fair critical response only works if more people agree with you than just yourself.

But not as many critics who can enjoy the other films, and that's what I'm saying. An excellent horror film will get an 85% while an excellent drama will get a 92%. Yes, those films were widely received. and did get excellent reviews. But they were stopped from getting as good as the other films because they were horror and action films.
This is such a pointless argument. You're complaining that because a horror film you think is excellent didn't get as good reviews as you think it should've, the critics are biased.

First off, that's nonsensical.

Secondly, 85% is a hugely positive rating. Stop acting like it's not.

A mediocre drama will get a better grade than a mediocre horror movie any day. I also highly doubt that a panned drama movie will ever be labeled as "pornography" by critics like the horror genre has had to endure for years, including recent years.
Back up what you're saying. Show some mediocre dramas that got better grades than equally mediocre horror movies.

Yes. There is a reason they prefer dramas and thrillers, because those kinds of films are the films they prefer.

Critics grade those kinds of movies much harsher than they would grade a drama and thriller because it is not the kind of film they particularly enjoy as much as the dramas.
And just what the hell are you basing that off of?

I haven't seen a single example, aside from THE DESCENT (which is a poor example to begin with, since it got excellent reviews), that horror and action films aren't graded fairly.

They aren't the kind of people like me, or like the guys at Bloody Disgusting, or like Arrow, for example, who love the gritty violent movies.
So in other words, you guys have a bias in favor of action and horror films.

Well, just because critics aren't biased FOR them like you guys, that doesn't mean they're biased AGAINST them either. This has already been proven with the many positively reviewed horror and action films in this thread. Meanwhile, you haven't shown a single example of an unfairly reviewed action/horror film.

LordSimen

09-07-2007, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Quigles
But this already proves a vital flaw in your logic. If you can't even show examples of what horror films SHOULD be getting over 90%, then you're basically arguing that you want critics to be biased IN FAVOR of horror and action films instead of just being fair to all films equally.

So now you want me to count every horror/action film from the last 5 years that I think should be getting over 90%? Fine. I will.

The Descent
High Tension
The Hills Have Eyes (Remake)
Hostel
Hostel 2
The Devil's Rejects
Death Sentence
28 Weeks Later
28 Days Later
Dawn of the Dead 04
Silent Hill

To name the ones off the top of my head.

Originally posted by Quigles

This is such a pointless argument. You're complaining that because a horror film you think is excellent didn't get as good reviews as you think it should've, the critics are biased.

First off, that's nonsensical.

Secondly, 85% is a hugely positive rating. Stop acting like it's not.

It is a positive rating, but the movie deserved more than that. Films like it get a 85% while boring and incredible dull films like The Queen get oscars. It's depressing.

Originally posted by Quigles
Back up what you're saying. Show some mediocre dramas that got better grades than equally mediocre horror movies.

You have the rather mediocre horror film Final Destination getting a 30% while a mediocre drama film like The Black Dahlia gets a 35%, just to give one example.

Originally posted by Quigles

And just what the hell are you basing that off of?

I haven't seen a single example, aside from THE DESCENT (which is a poor example to begin with, since it got excellent reviews), that horror and action films aren't graded fairly.

See above.

Originally posted by Quigles
So in other words, you guys have a bias in favor of action and horror films.

Well, just because critics aren't biased FOR them like you guys, that doesn't mean they're biased AGAINST them either. This has already been proven with the many positively reviewed horror and action films in this thread. Meanwhile, you haven't shown a single example of an unfairly reviewed action/horror film.

Yes, but I'm not reviewing films on a professional level, am I? Just because I'm biased for them does not mean they arn't biased against them. History has shown a great prejudice towards horror films on the part of the critics.

Like I mentioned before, when you get a mediocre horror movie you get critics screaming about the film equating it to "pornographry" (see Saw and the like), but a mediocre drama just gets treated like any other movie. That, my friend, shows bias.

Quigles

09-07-2007, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
So now you want me to count every horror/action film from the last 5 years that I think should be getting over 90%? Fine. I will.

The Descent
High Tension
The Hills Have Eyes (Remake)
Hostel
Hostel 2
The Devil's Rejects
Death Sentence
28 Weeks Later
28 Days Later
Dawn of the Dead 04
Silent Hill

To name the ones off the top of my head.
ALMOST ALL OF THOSE GOT HIGHLY POSITIVE REVIEWS!!

And the ones that didn't were very debatable films, such as SILENT HILL (which I enjoyed, but was a total mess) and DEATH SENTENCE (which I personally thought was crap).

What the fuck are you even arguing about? You seem more pissed off that the mass critical opinion doesn't match your own than anything.

It is a positive rating, but the movie deserved more than that. Films like it get a 85% while boring and incredible dull films like The Queen get oscars. It's depressing.
That comment is depressing. I can barely muster up the energy to talk to you anymore after reading that.

You have the rather mediocre horror film Final Destination getting a 30% while a mediocre drama film like The Black Dahlia gets a 35%, just to give one example.
...5 percent difference...

You're comparing a 5 percent difference. You have got to be kidding me. All you're doing is proving my point.

That being, it doesn't matter the genre; in a critic's eyes, a mediocre film is a mediocre film.

Yes, but I'm not reviewing films on a professional level, am I? Just because I'm biased for them does not mean they arn't biased against them. History has shown a great prejudice towards horror films on the part of the critics.
Yes, history. IN THE PAST. But as you yourself have proven with the film examples you listed above, that bias is hardly prevalent anymore. Critics don't show bias any more toward the action and horror genres than they do to the others.

Like I mentioned before, when you get a mediocre horror movie you get critics screaming about the film equating it to "pornographry" (see Saw and the like), but a mediocre drama just gets treated like any other movie. That, my friend, shows bias.
This is getting ridiculous. "Torture porn" was dubbed with that term because it represented a type of film filled with gratuitous violence and gore, but little in the way of redeeming qualities.

But that doesn't mean a critic will immediately hate anything that could be associated with that term. Compare the reviews for HOSTEL and SAW to, say, CAPTIVITY. There's a reason why one got horrendous reviews while the other two got half-and-half. That being, the former films at least attempted (however little) to offer up more than just senseless gore.

And FYI - If a drama isn't any good, it will be reviewed as such. Usually, the reason a drama will get more positive reviews because it will have more to offer than just stupidity. That's why, at the end of the year, there will always be more praised dramas than films from any other genre.

But here are some examples of poor to mediocre dramas that got negative reviews:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/good_year/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/all_the_kings_men/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gods_and_generals/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/self_medicated/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/peaceful_warrior/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fur/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10002516-lost_city/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10005145-romance_and_cigarettes/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/great_raid/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/flyboys/

Need more?

echo_bravo

09-07-2007, 06:07 PM

Yeah, I could of sworn Wolfcreek was critically acclaimed. I know some critics were calling it Australia's Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
I really dug that film.

For the most part, horror films are pretty bad and are a guilty pleasure.

LordSimen

09-07-2007, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Quigles
ALMOST ALL OF THOSE GOT HIGHLY POSITIVE REVIEWS!!

And the ones that didn't were very debatable films, such as SILENT HILL (which I enjoyed, but was a total mess) and DEATH SENTENCE (which I personally thought was crap).
What the fuck are you even arguing about? You seem more pissed off that the mass critical opinion doesn't match your own than anything.

But they didn't recieve as much praise as they would of had they not have been horror films. That is my point.

Originally posted by Quigles
That comment is depressing. I can barely muster up the energy to talk to you anymore after reading that

Too bad.

Originally posted by Quigles
...5 percent difference...

You're comparing a 5 percent difference. You have got to be kidding me. All you're doing is proving my point.

Yes. I am. It's not proving your point at all, because it shows two mediocre films with the drama getting a higher rating than the horror. That's what you asked me to provide an example for and I did.

Originally posted by Quigles
Yes, history. IN THE PAST. But as you yourself have proven with the film examples you listed above, that bias is hardly prevalent anymore. Critics don't show bias any more toward the action and horror genres than they do to the others.

As I've stated before, a mediocre drama won't get labeled as "pornography" by the critics who are against their existence like a horror film would. There's no difference between that and when John Carpenter was described as a "pornographer of violence" by critics when he released his masterpiece The Thing.

Originally posted by Quigles
This is getting ridiculous. "Torture porn" was dubbed with that term because it represented a type of film filled with gratuitous violence and gore, but little in the way of redeeming qualities.

But that doesn't mean a critic will immediately hate anything that could be associated with that term. Compare the reviews for HOSTEL and SAW to, say, CAPTIVITY. There's a reason why one got horrendous reviews while the other two got half-and-half. That being, the former films at least attempted (however little) to offer up more than just senseless gore.

Yes. It does. The person who coined the term Torture Porn coined it in an offensive manner to demean and belittle the horror genre. If they had not meant to do that, they wouldn't have used "pornography" to describe it. You won't ever find a drama being labeled as pornography. You may find a controversial film such as Monster's Ball being controversial for it's graphic content, but I never once heard someone use the word porn to describe that.

It's an incredibly offensive term not only to the viewer of the film but also the filmmaker and the film itself.

Originally posted by Quigles

And FYI - If a drama isn't any good, it will be reviewed as such. Usually, the reason a drama will get more positive reviews because it will have more to offer than just stupidity. That's why, at the end of the year, there will always be more praised dramas than films from any other genre.

But here are some examples of poor to mediocre dramas that got negative reviews:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/good_year/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/all_the_kings_men/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gods_and_generals/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/self_medicated/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/peaceful_warrior/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fur/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10002516-lost_city/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10005145-romance_and_cigarettes/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/great_raid/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/flyboys/

And I'm sure if they were horror films of the same quality you'd expect a good 5-10% percent drop on those ratings.

Quigles

09-07-2007, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
But they didn't recieve as much praise as they would of had they not have been horror films. That is my point.
How can you even begin to justify such a ridiculous comment? Not only is it impossible to know that, but had the movies not been horror, they would've been completely different films.

Yes. I am. It's not proving your point at all, because it shows two mediocre films with the drama getting a higher rating than the horror. That's what you asked me to provide an example for and I did.
First of all, who are you to say which film is the better of the two?

Secondly, how in the hell does a 5 percent difference prove your point? When you're talking about a scale of 1 to 100, that's laughable. Especially since both films have entirely different review counts.

As I've stated before, a mediocre drama won't get labeled as "pornography" by the critics who are against their existence like a horror film would.
You have no idea what you're talking about. I've seen a TON of sexually explicit dramas getting categorized as the equivalent of pornography.

You won't ever find a drama being labeled as pornography. You may find a controversial film such as Monster's Ball being controversial for it's graphic content, but I never once heard someone use the word porn to describe that.
O RLY? (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=neS&q=%22monster%27s+ball%22+porn&btnG=Search)

And I'm sure if they were horror films of the same quality you'd expect a good 5-10% percent drop on those ratings.
I'd say that's a stupid comment, but I don't even have to since there's no way for you to back that up outside of just your own personal opinion.

chinton

09-07-2007, 08:04 PM

But then again most horror films are pretty bad nowadays. Horror films are generally in their nadir.

LordSimen

09-07-2007, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Quigles
How can you even begin to justify such a ridiculous comment? Not only is it impossible to know that, but had the movies not been horror, they would've been completely different films.

First of all, who are you to say which film is the better of the two?

Secondly, how in the hell does a 5 percent difference prove your point? When you're talking about a scale of 1 to 100, that's laughable. Especially since both films have entirely different review counts.

How can you begin to justify your ridiculous comments? Because it's what you believe just as I believe what I believe, that's why. Had the movies had been horror, they would have gotten much lower ratings than they recieved even if they were at the same level.

Who are the critics to say which film is better of the two? No one. They aren't anyone and have no place to say which film is better. Just like myself.

A five percent difference shows a difference, it's not laughable and shows prejudice. If you choose to ignore that, that's your problem, not mine.

Originally posted by Quigles
You have no idea what you're talking about. I've seen a TON of sexually explicit dramas getting categorized as the equivalent of pornography.

O RLY? (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=neS&q=%22monster%27s+ball%22+porn&btnG=Search)

I stand corrected on this front. You are right, there have been dramas catagorized as porn, but no where near to the level of horror films. (I do believe Halle won an oscar for that so called porn film of hers).

Originally posted by Quigles

I'd say that's a stupid comment, but I don't even have to since there's no way for you to back that up outside of just your own personal opinion.

This entire argument is personal opinion vs. personal opinion. You feel critics aren't biased against horror films, I believe there are. There is no true way to prove either side.

Quigles

09-07-2007, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
How can you begin to justify your ridiculous comments? Because it's what you believe just as I believe what I believe, that's why. Had the movies had been horror, they would have gotten much lower ratings than they recieved even if they were at the same level.
Believing in something works a lot better if you actually have evidence to back up your thoughts.

Who are the critics to say which film is better of the two? No one. They aren't anyone and have no place to say which film is better. Just like myself.
I'm gonna go ahead and state that, AS A FACT, the consensus opinion of around 100 to 200 critics makes for a better judge of which film is higher in quality than compared to just your own.

A five percent difference shows a difference, it's not laughable and shows prejudice. If you choose to ignore that, that's your problem, not mine.
...my god. Unbelievable.

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, it means a small percentage of critics simply thought one was better than the other? That perhaps it has nothing to do with prejudice against the genre, and is instead a very mild statement of one film being critically considered a slightly better film?

Just a maybe though. I'm sure in actuality the critics all rallied together to make sure THE BLACK DAHLIA didn't get as poor a rating as FINAL DESTINATION. In fact, that's definitely what happened.

BTW - The FINAL DESTINATION series actually proves my point about how horror films have become more accepted by critics in recent years. Go ahead and compare the Rotten Tomatoes ratings on all three movies.

I stand corrected on this front. You are right, there have been dramas catagorized as porn, but no where near to the level of horror films. (I do believe Halle won an oscar for that so called porn film of hers).
Leave the Oscar bullshit out of this. The Academy Awards are a joke. That's a different debate entirely.

This entire argument is personal opinion vs. personal opinion. You feel critics aren't biased against horror films, I believe there are. There is no true way to prove either side.
No, this is personal opinion with NO evidence vs. personal opinion WITH evidence. There's a difference.

LordSimen

09-07-2007, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Quigles
Believing in something works a lot better if you actually have evidence to back up your thoughts.

We've both provided information back and forth for this debate, don't try to pull this "you have no proof" bullshit. I've provided proof, you've ignored it.

Originally posted by Quigles

I'm gonna go ahead and state that, AS A FACT, the consensus opinion of around 100 to 200 critics makes for a better judge of which film is higher in quality than compared to just your own.

That's not a fact. The only opinion I care about is my own, not yours or anyone elses. A false fact. If these are the kind of "Facts" you use to prove your opinion you're not going to get anywhere.

Originally posted by Quigles

...my god. Unbelievable.

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, it means a small percentage of critics simply thought one was better than the other? That perhaps it has nothing to do with prejudice against the genre, and is instead a very mild statement of one film being critically considered a slightly better film?

Just a maybe though. I'm sure in actuality the critics all rallied together to make sure THE BLACK DAHLIA didn't get as poor a rating as FINAL DESTINATION. In fact, that's definitely what happened.

Yes. They thought one was better than the other because one was a horror movie.

Originally posted by Quigles

BTW - The FINAL DESTINATION series actually proves my point about how horror films have become more accepted by critics in recent years. Go ahead and compare the Rotten Tomatoes ratings on all three movies.

Horror movies have become more acceptable has time has gone on, so has everything. Doesn't change the fact the prejudice and hatred towards horror films still exists. The fact the term "torture porn" is still used when reviewing films is further proof of this.

Originally posted by Quigles
Leave the Oscar bullshit out of this. The Academy Awards are a joke. That's a different debate entirely..

Oscars, critics, same difference to me. A bunch of pretentious people watching pretentious dramas and overpraising them while degrading the horror genre.

Originally posted by Quigles

No, this is personal opinion with NO evidence vs. personal opinion WITH evidence. There's a difference.

See above.

Quigles

09-07-2007, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
We've both provided information back and forth for this debate, don't try to pull this "you have no proof" bullshit. I've provided proof, you've ignored it.
The information you provided did more to help my argument than yours.

Yes. They thought one was better than the other because one was a horror movie.
So much inanity packed into one comment. Impressive.

Horror movies have become more acceptable has time has gone on, so has everything.
Like killing babies, for instance.

Doesn't change the fact the prejudice and hatred towards horror films still exists. The fact the term "torture porn" is still used when reviewing films is further proof of this.
You make it sound like the phrase has been around forever, when it actuality the term "torture porn" was coined because of this awful recent trend to just show people being brutally murdered and senseless amounts gore, with no redeeming qualities in terms of story or character development. Critics don't simply blast all horror films by calling them that. They only do it the ones that actually qualify.

Oscars, critics, same difference to me. A bunch of pretentious people watching pretentious dramas and overpraising them while degrading the horror genre.
:rolleyes:

psycheoutsteve

09-07-2007, 09:42 PM

Just as not all horror films qualify to be labeled as torture porn, (only the tasteless ones do) not all critics deserve to labeled as pretentious. Even some of the critics outside of this site judge films fairly and will only badmouth a horror film if it doesn't offer anything besides mindless violence, gore, or nudity.

Dramas take a great deal of effort to develop, (even the shitty ones) because you have to have some sort of story revolving around characters who go through certain changes or arcs by the end of the film. Some horror films can skip all this, (B-minus genre or poorly made films) and slap a bunch of characters into a movie who are relentlessly pusued by some sort of monstrous entity. There is little or no development in those films in the vein of story, character development, or an intelligent plot. Why should anyone take those movies seriously? Of course, no one should take a shitty drama seriously either, but i could see one being more effective than certain shitty horror films. How many B- dramas are out there anyways?

All in all it really just depends on the individual film being judged because there are plenty of well done and well received horror films out there. Some horror films just give the genre a bad name.

LordSimen

09-07-2007, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Quigles
The information you provided did more to help my argument than yours. So much inanity packed into one comment. Impressive. Like killing babies, for instance.
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Quigles
You make it sound like the phrase has been around forever, when it actuality the term "torture porn" was coined because of this awful recent trend to just show people being brutally murdered and senseless amounts gore, with no redeeming qualities in terms of story or character development. Critics don't simply blast all horror films by calling them that. They only do it the ones that actually qualify.

None qualify with the exception of films actually designed to be pornos and including torture within them. Those are the only films which qualify under that term.

psycheoutsteve

09-08-2007, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
:rolleyes:

None qualify with the exception of films actually designed to be pornos and including torture within them. Those are the only films which qualify under that term.

I disagree entirely with that statement. There are horror films out there that equate to nothing more than absolute shit, which involve gratuitous scenes of violence, torture, and nudity. These films shouldn't kid themselves with the prospect of offering something more than the aformentioned qualities. Torture Porn is a fitting term for some flicks because these films are simply out to shock and exploit their lowly qualities.

The term only applies to a select group of horror movies though and I don't believe it entirely stains the name of the horror genre.

LordSimen

09-08-2007, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by psycheoutsteve
I disagree entirely with that statement. There are horror films out there that equate to nothing more than absolute shit, which involve gratuitous scenes of violence, torture, and nudity. These films shouldn't kid themselves with the prospect of offering something more than the aformentioned qualities. Torture Porn is a fitting term for some flicks because these films are simply out to shock and exploit their lowly qualities.

The term only applies to a select group of horror movies though and I don't believe it entirely stains the name of the horror genre.

I disagree with your statement. Torture Porn should only be used for a film that is just that, a porno with torture in it. That is the only type of film which warrants a term like "Torture Porn."

psycheoutsteve

09-08-2007, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
I disagree with your statement. Torture Porn should only be used for a film that is just that, a porno with torture in it. That is the only type of film which warrants a term like "Torture Porn."

I see what you're saying, but you believe the term should only be used for a porno film with torture in it, a direct definition. My point is, if the films are so shitty that they can't offer anything besides violence, gore, and nudity then they deserve the demeaning title. Anyone could make those mindless films, to develop a concept and make it something more takes effort.

A shitty film gets what it deserves...mockery...

Quigles

09-08-2007, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
None qualify with the exception of films actually designed to be pornos and including torture within them. Those are the only films which qualify under that term.
Whatever you say.

Doesn't matter though, since my point wasn't about the term "torture porn" being fitting or not, but about critics only using it for horror films that offer nothing but senseless gore and people being butchered.

And for the record, it would be pretty easy to argue that HOSTEL was nothing more than a relatively high budget softcore porno with torture in it. Thus making the term "torture porn" apt.

LordSimen

09-08-2007, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by Quigles
Whatever you say.

Doesn't matter though, since my point wasn't about the term "torture porn" being fitting or not, but about critics only using it for horror films that offer nothing but senseless gore and people being butchered.

And for the record, it would be pretty easy to argue that HOSTEL was nothing more than a relatively high budget softcore porno with torture in it. Thus making the term "torture porn" apt.

Too bad it wasn't.

Quigles

09-08-2007, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
Too bad it wasn't.
Well, fuck. Got me there.

Mr.HyDe807

09-08-2007, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
Too bad it wasn't.

Although i kinda liked the movie.....

1st half- Guys banging chicks, while one is hesistant. Then meets a girl and bangs the chick. Random sex in a hotel room. Oh, and a plot line of going to a hostel.

2nd half- Uh-oh, banging chciks fucked us over (pun intended). Torture ensues....

I gotta agree with Quigles on this one

Most of the horror movies these days that have been giving shit have been remakes and the "torture" genre, which basically do the exact same thing in every movie, only with a barely different plot line.

FatSakHead

09-08-2007, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Quigles
Well, fuck. Got me there.

I've learned to give up the argument a long time ago.

*Goes to have more constructive argument with tree stump*

someguy

09-08-2007, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
That's not a fact. The only opinion I care about is my own, not yours or anyone elses.

Honestly, why the fuck are you discussing this issue then? Why are you even bothering if you only care about your opinion and no one else's? Are you trying to convert us to the right way of your thinking? Quigles has provided plenty of links and did in fact make you admit you were wrong on one aspect, you've just said that two unrelated films have different ratings and therefore critics are biased to horror movies. You also said that a film getting 85% simply isn't enough because YOU think it isn't enough. I'm sorry, when did we all have to follow the LordSimen critical scale? I didn't know that your thoughts were the starting position for where everyone must think. I can see Roger Ebert typing his review up thinking 'Well, LordSimen loved Hostel so I must give it 4 stars! Give Mr. Roth the directing Oscar he fully deserves!!!'

I'm a horror fan too, I grew up watching horror films but because I think that a movie like The Queen is better than Hostel does that mean I'm naturally biased towards horror movies? No, but to you it does because I'm simply disagreeing with your opinion. This is how you've made yourself look in this thread. I just hope you understand that your posts may be coming off as arrogant to some. At least Quigles is not saying his opinion is right because it's his opinion, he's provided plenty of evidence to back up his points. It seems that you are looking at it wrong though, because your opinion is not also evidence that your opinion is right. Seriously, what's the point of debating this at all if you're going to act like that?

LordSimen

09-08-2007, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Mr.HyDe807
Although i kinda liked the movie.....

1st half- Guys banging chicks, while one is hesistant. Then meets a girl and bangs the chick. Random sex in a hotel room. Oh, and a plot line of going to a hostel.

2nd half- Uh-oh, banging chciks fucked us over (pun intended). Torture ensues....

I gotta agree with Quigles on this one

Most of the horror movies these days that have been giving shit have been remakes and the "torture" genre, which basically do the exact same thing in every movie, only with a barely different plot line.

1. A porno portrays real sex as it occurs on screen, not fake sex.

2. Nudity does not equal a a porno

It's not a porno. It's just a torture horror flick. By your own logic every movie with fake sex in it would be a porno.

Originally posted by someguy
Honestly, why the fuck are you discussing this issue then? Why are you even bothering if you only care about your opinion and no one else's? Are you trying to convert us to the right way of your thinking? Quigles has provided plenty of links and did in fact make you admit you were wrong on one aspect, you've just said that two unrelated films have different ratings and therefore critics are biased to horror movies. You also said that a film getting 85% simply isn't enough because YOU think it isn't enough. I'm sorry, when did we all have to follow the LordSimen critical scale? I didn't know that your thoughts were the starting position for where everyone must think. I can see Roger Ebert typing his review up thinking 'Well, LordSimen loved Hostel so I must give it 4 stars! Give Mr. Roth the directing Oscar he fully deserves!!!'

I'm a horror fan too, I grew up watching horror films but because I think that a movie like The Queen is better than Hostel does that mean I'm naturally biased towards horror movies? No, but to you it does because I'm simply disagreeing with your opinion. This is how you've made yourself look in this thread. I just hope you understand that your posts may be coming off as arrogant to some. At least Quigles is not saying his opinion is right because it's his opinion, he's provided plenty of evidence to back up his points. It seems that you are looking at it wrong though, because your opinion is not also evidence that your opinion is right. Seriously, what's the point of debating this at all if you're going to act like that?

Because it's a fucking discussion forum and I can post on whatever the fuck I want regardless of whatever the hell you or Quigles things about it. Understand? Good. Now lay off my dick.

This whole thread is about opinions, if you don't like mine, then too bad. Because I'm giving it. What Quigles has said is simply his opinion just as what I have said is my opinion. He thinks Critics arn't biased because it's HIS OPINION. He thinks 85% proves there's no prejudice because it's HIS OPINION. If you're going to get on my ass for posting my opinion, get on his ass.

But I suppose if I'm going to use the same kind of logic you're applying to me, I could easily say "85% is a sufficient rating because QUIGLES says it's so!!!!! BOW DOWN TO THE MIGHTY QUIGLES FOR HIS OPINION ON WHAT'S SUFFICIENT RULES ALL!" See? I can paint someone as looking arrogant too.

I have provided much proof and backing to my claims, and Quigles has simply brushed that information off with "You're looking at it completely the wrong way." Fuck that bullshit. I posted proof that there hasn't been barely any horror films that have been given a 90% rating in the last five years and he tells me I'm looking at it in the wrong way. It PROVES there is a bias towards horror films and is part of my argument, but he ignores it. And so do you. When you ignore all the proof all you're left with is the opinion. Arrogance? No. I think you guys are the arrogant ones for ignoring my proof as "invalid" and only looking upon your proof, which is just as valid as mine, as more valid.

Originally posted by psycheoutsteve
I see what you're saying, but you believe the term should only be used for a porno film with torture in it, a direct definition. My point is, if the films are so shitty that they can't offer anything besides violence, gore, and nudity then they deserve the demeaning title. Anyone could make those mindless films, to develop a concept and make it something more takes effort.

A shitty film gets what it deserves...mockery...

A shitty film deserves well deserved mockery. Calling a film a porno when it clearly isn't a porno isn't deserved mockery. Just because someone hates a film does NOT make it a porno, and that has never been how you define a movie as a porno.

You call the flicks mindless, I disagree, and let's leave it at that.

Brando @$$ Fat

09-08-2007, 03:54 PM

Does anyone remember the good ol' days when horror movies were about little dead girls holding hands and not about people being tied up and tortured for two hours by some lonely psychopath? Maybe someone can confirm this so I can be sure there was in fact a time when this happened and I'm not crazy.

psycheoutsteve

09-08-2007, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Does anyone remember the good ol' days when horror movies were about little dead girls holding hands and not about people being tied up and tortured for two hours by some lonely psychopath? Maybe someone can confirm this so I can be sure there was in fact a time when this happened and I'm not crazy.

There was indeed a time of which you speak, but you know how recent trends are, repeating the same old bullshit formulas to death. Every once in awhile there comes a horror film that is something more though. My pick for this year is 1408, a very intelligent, character driven, suspense filled horror picture.

FatSakHead

09-08-2007, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen

Because it's a fucking discussion forum and I can post on whatever the fuck I want regardless of whatever the hell you or Quigles things about it. Understand? Good. Now lay off my dick.

This whole thread is about opinions, if you don't like mine, then too bad. Because I'm giving it. What Quigles has said is simply his opinion just as what I have said is my opinion. He thinks Critics arn't biased because it's HIS OPINION. He thinks 85% proves there's no prejudice because it's HIS OPINION. If you're going to get on my ass for posting my opinion, get on his ass.

But I suppose if I'm going to use the same kind of logic you're applying to me, I could easily say "85% is a sufficient rating because QUIGLES says it's so!!!!! BOW DOWN TO THE MIGHTY QUIGLES FOR HIS OPINION ON WHAT'S SUFFICIENT RULES ALL!" See? I can paint someone as looking arrogant too.

When the fuck did Quigles say his idea of what is sufficient is the be-all end-all? Fuck dude, not only are you pulling shit out of your ass but you're putting words into people's mouths. I mean, your argument that a 5% difference between tomatometer ratings on two completely different and unrelated films as proof of bias is one of the dumbest arguments I think I've read in this forum.

I have provided much proof and backing to my claims, and Quigles has simply brushed that information off with "You're looking at it completely the wrong way." Fuck that bullshit. I posted proof that there hasn't been barely any horror films that have been given a 90% rating in the last five years and he tells me I'm looking at it in the wrong way. It PROVES there is a bias towards horror films and is part of my argument, but he ignores it. And so do you. When you ignore all the proof all you're left with is the opinion. Arrogance? No. I think you guys are the arrogant ones for ignoring my proof as "invalid" and only looking upon your proof, which is just as valid as mine, as more valid.

Have you ever stopped to think that it's probably because it can be argued that no horror film in the past 5 years has really deserved 90% or higher ratings? I tend to agree with the popular opinion shared by many on this board that the number of decent horror movies has been decreasing every year. For some reason, call me batshit crazy, but I doubt that critics walk out of horror movies thinking "I really enjoyed this movie but since its a horror flick I'm going to give it a lower rating than it deserves to decrease its chance of getting above a 90% rating on rottentomaotes.com". You're the first person I've seen whine about a movie not getting above a 90% rating. Most movies these days, and that includes dramas, are very fucking lucky to approach near a 75%.

A shitty film deserves well deserved mockery. Calling a film a porno when it clearly isn't a porno isn't deserved mockery. Just because someone hates a film does NOT make it a porno, and that has never been how you define a movie as a porno.

LMAO. Your first sentence answered your own question for why people call a movie a porno when it isn't. In their opinion, a movie that's about nothing other than tits, torture, and gore is a piece of shit, and like you said, deserving of mockery. Calling it a "porno" is one of their ways of mocking it. What the fuck can you not understand about that?

You call the flicks mindless, I disagree, and let's leave it at that.

Nobody ever said you were wrong in enjoying what we call mindless. We just said it's pretty dumb to label all critics as biased just because they disagree with you, especially when we've provided you with enough proof that they aren't biased.

Using your logic, I could say that critics are biased towards dramas because Rules of Attraction only got a 44% while Romero's piece of shit and highly overpraised Land of the Dead got a 74%.

LordSimen

09-08-2007, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by FatSakHead
When the fuck did Quigles say his idea of what is sufficient is the be-all end-all? Fuck dude, not only are you pulling shit out of your ass but you're putting words into people's mouths. I mean, your argument that a 5% difference between tomatometer ratings on two completely different and unrelated films as proof of bias is one of the dumbest arguments I think I've read in this forum.
When the fuck did I say my opinion of what is not sufficient is the end all be all? You people are putting words in my mouth so I'm putting words in yours. I've stated my opinion and never once have I said that it's the only opinion in the world. If you don't like my argument, too bad. Your opinion isn't the end all be all of what are the dumbest arguments on the forum. Stop being arrogant. (sarcasm)

Originally posted by FatSakHead
Have you ever stopped to think that it's probably because it can be argued that no horror film in the past 5 years has really deserved 90% or higher ratings? I tend to agree with the popular opinion shared by many on this board that the number of decent horror movies has been decreasing every year. For some reason, call me batshit crazy, but I doubt that critics walk out of horror movies thinking "I really enjoyed this movie but since its a horror flick I'm going to give it a lower rating than it deserves to decrease its chance of getting above a 90% rating on rottentomaotes.com". You're the first person I've seen whine about a movie not getting above a 90% rating. Most movies these days, and that includes dramas, are very fucking lucky to approach near a 75%.

No, I havn't stopped the think that because i don't believe that. I think there have been plenty of movies that have deserved a 90% or higher rating, and I stand by that opinion and will defend it to the damnedest. If you don't like that I have that opinion, too bad. I'm not changing it.

Originally posted by FatSakHead

Calling A moviee a porno when it is not a porno isn't a well deserved mockery. That's just lying. What the FUCK can you not understand about that?

Originally posted by FatSakHead
[B]Nobody ever said you were wrong in enjoying what we call mindless. We just said it's pretty dumb to label all critics as biased just because they disagree with you, especially when we've provided you with enough proof that they aren't biased.

And I never said anyone did, that's why I left it at "let's leave it at that." I label critics as biased because I believe that are and history has shown that they have been biased as do the facts as I see them. If you can't understand that this is my opinion, too bad.

Originally posted by FatSakHead
Using your logic, I could say that critics are biased towards dramas because Rules of Attraction only got a 44% while Romero's piece of shit and highly overpraised Land of the Dead got a 74%.

Romero is one of the few directors who does get lots of praise and is a rare case in the horror genre. I'm glad that critics have given him praise over movies like Rules of Attraction, but it's a rareity.

someguy

09-08-2007, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
Because it's a fucking discussion forum and I can post on whatever the fuck I want regardless of whatever the hell you or Quigles things about it. Understand? Good. Now lay off my dick.

This whole thread is about opinions, if you don't like mine, then too bad. Because I'm giving it. What Quigles has said is simply his opinion just as what I have said is my opinion. He thinks Critics arn't biased because it's HIS OPINION. He thinks 85% proves there's no prejudice because it's HIS OPINION. If you're going to get on my ass for posting my opinion, get on his ass.

You misunderstood what I'm saying. You said that the only opinion you care about is your own and nobody else's. I'm asking why you even bother getting into a discussion with someone over this when you really don't care about what they're going to say. Obviously you find your opinion to be correct if you don't care about anyone else's. I'm not calling you arrogant, I'm saying that it just looks arrogant.

Your opinion talk isn't really true either. Quigles thinks that critics are not biased towards horror films because 85% of critics liked The Descent. He's taking a fact and making a conclusion from it. You on the other hand are saying that because you find it worthy of a rating higher than 85%, that means critics are biased against horror movies. That's using your opinion as something that everyone should see as a starting point when rating movies. Quigles is not doing that, he is backing up his opinion with facts. You are backing up your opinion with your opinion.

But I suppose if I'm going to use the same kind of logic you're applying to me, I could easily say "85% is a sufficient rating because QUIGLES says it's so!!!!! BOW DOWN TO THE MIGHTY QUIGLES FOR HIS OPINION ON WHAT'S SUFFICIENT RULES ALL!" See? I can paint someone as looking arrogant too.

Not really.

I have provided much proof and backing to my claims, and Quigles has simply brushed that information off with "You're looking at it completely the wrong way." Fuck that bullshit. I posted proof that there hasn't been barely any horror films that have been given a 90% rating in the last five years and he tells me I'm looking at it in the wrong way. It PROVES there is a bias towards horror films and is part of my argument, but he ignores it. And so do you. When you ignore all the proof all you're left with is the opinion. Arrogance? No. I think you guys are the arrogant ones for ignoring my proof as "invalid" and only looking upon your proof, which is just as valid as mine, as more valid.

Your proof isn't very good at all. You use the fact that The Black Dahlia got a higher rating than Final Destination as a proof for bias towards horror. You're just taking two things almost entirely unrelated from each other and saying that they are related. What you proved was that people didn't like The Black Dahlia or Final Destination that much. It's like saying that because John and Jane are common names, everyone hates the name Jared.

Just because horror movies are not getting 90% or above across the board does not mean that critics are naturally biased against them. There are plenty of horror films that are between 70 to 90 in percentage, and those are not bad ratings at all. It's pretty difficult to achieve a 90% critic average or higher most of the time, and I would simply think that horror movies don't have too many ratings over 90% because opinions vary. Oldboy has an 81% rating at RT and I think that the movie is at least a 90 to 95. I don't think that critics are biased towards Asian movies or 'extreme' films like Oldboy, I'm actually pleased with the consensus. I think that crying foul because the consensus doesn't match what you think it should be doesn't prove anything at all.

Scarfather

09-08-2007, 08:46 PM

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/2791/cb38cb5004473ea6ba5e8f8rc7.jpg

someguy

09-08-2007, 08:51 PM

Agree, but man that's an overused/old picture

Brando @$$ Fat

09-08-2007, 08:52 PM

Holy shit, that cat really isn't fucking around.

dreamcurls

09-08-2007, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by God of Cinema
Who cares what critics like anyhow.

my thoughts exactly! screw critics man!
i don't give a good damn what critics say (or my friends and co-workers for that matter) ;)
if i'm interested in a movie enough i'm going to see it, regardless. end of story.

mutesaint

09-08-2007, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by someguy
Agree, but man that's an overused/old picture

I am going to show my age here(not sure if that is saying I'm young or old) but I have never seen the serious cat pic. It did make me laugh out loud though.

Scarfather

09-08-2007, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by someguy
Agree, but man that's an overused/old picture

Yeah I know, but by the time I reached the end of this thread this picture had long past creeped into my mind and had started poking my brain with a stick.

If LordSimen doesn't care about anyone's opinion but his own, I can't see why he would feel the need to argue the thing other then he wants the last word, which is something only someone insecure about the validity of their opinion would do.

FatSakHead

09-08-2007, 09:38 PM

GRAAHHHHHH MAC FLURRRGLEFUCKGRAAAHHHH MAC FLURRRGLEFUCCKKK BAAAAAJ

HULK HOGAN GETS TITFUCKED IN THE EYE BY BOB SAGET WHILE BILL COSBY LAYS EGGS IN HIS HEAR!!

someguy

09-08-2007, 09:46 PM

Sadly, that may have been the smartest post in this thread

edit: to clarify ;);):D:p;)

FatSakHead

09-08-2007, 10:04 PM

I gave up arguing with LordSimen a long time ago. My time is better spent eating paint chips and masturbating with sand paper.

LordSimen

09-08-2007, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by someguy
You misunderstood what I'm saying. You said that the only opinion you care about is your own and nobody else's. I'm asking why you even bother getting into a discussion with someone over this when you really don't care about what they're going to say. Obviously you find your opinion to be correct if you don't care about anyone else's. I'm not calling you arrogant, I'm saying that it just looks arrogant.

I was talking about Critic's reviews when I said that statement. And part of the reason I don't care about critics reviews are for the very thing I am debating in this thread, a lot are biased against horror movies and generally gives horror movies lower scores than they would if they were not horror.

Originally posted by someguy
Your opinion talk isn't really true either. Quigles thinks that critics are not biased towards horror films because 85% of critics liked The Descent. He's taking a fact and making a conclusion from it. You on the other hand are saying that because you find it worthy of a rating higher than 85%, that means critics are biased against horror movies. That's using your opinion as something that everyone should see as a starting point when rating movies. Quigles is not doing that, he is backing up his opinion with facts. You are backing up your opinion with your opinion.

Is it not a fact that many films have not gained a 90% or higher on Rotten tomatoes in the last 5 years? Isn't it not a fact that The Black Dahlia has a higher rating than Final Destination? Isn't it not a fact that many critics use the term "Torture Porn" to describe most modern horror? I'm taking these facts and forming an opinion behind them. You can disagree with what these facts mean in the grand scheme of things, but you can't argue that these facts aren't true and that I haven't used them in this thread. I drew conclusions from facts just as Quigles did. You just disagree with my opinion and thus disregard my facts.

Originally posted by someguy
Your proof isn't very good at all. You use the fact that The Black Dahlia got a higher rating than Final Destination as a proof for bias towards horror. You're just taking two things almost entirely unrelated from each other and saying that they are related. What you proved was that people didn't like The Black Dahlia or Final Destination that much. It's like saying that because John and Jane are common names, everyone hates the name Jared.

And that's a legitimate assessment, but to disregard that I did not use it as proof and that I did not have any proof would be a lie. I had proof. Whether or not you found it good proof is up to you.

Originally posted by someguy
Just because horror movies are not getting 90% or above across the board does not mean that critics are naturally biased against them. There are plenty of horror films that are between 70 to 90 in percentage, and those are not bad ratings at all. It's pretty difficult to achieve a 90% critic average or higher most of the time, and I would simply think that horror movies don't have too many ratings over 90% because opinions vary. Oldboy has an 81% rating at RT and I think that the movie is at least a 90 to 95. I don't think that critics are biased towards Asian movies or 'extreme' films like Oldboy, I'm actually pleased with the consensus. I think that crying foul because the consensus doesn't match what you think it should be doesn't prove anything at all.

I firmly believe that critics are biased towards extreme films in any genre. I do agree that most have moved past this, but not all. A movie like Oldboy deserves a much higher rating, in my opinion and I believe that if it weren't an extreme revenge film (much like most horror films) it would have received a much higher grade than it got. I'm not saying my opinion is the end all be all of opinions, I am just stating my opinion. You can be pleased with the conensus all you want, but I don't. And I will cry foul all I want.

Brando @$$ Fat

09-08-2007, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by mutesaint
I am going to show my age here(not sure if that is saying I'm young or old) but I have never seen the serious cat pic. It did make me laugh out loud though.

I'd never seen it, either, if that helps.

Quigles

09-09-2007, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
a lot are biased against horror movies and generally gives horror movies lower scores than they would if they were not horror.
And yet, you've given no evidence to back this up.

Is it not a fact that many films have not gained a 90% or higher on Rotten tomatoes in the last 5 years? Isn't it not a fact that The Black Dahlia has a higher rating than Final Destination? Isn't it not a fact that many critics use the term "Torture Porn" to describe most modern horror? I'm taking these facts and forming an opinion behind them.
The big difference being, the facts you're offering in no way support your opinion.

I drew conclusions from facts just as Quigles did. You just disagree with my opinion and thus disregard my facts.
No, you didn't. The facts I used actually proved the points I was making. I didn't even have to tell people HOW they proved my point, because the information was freely available for them to see. You, on the other hand, took a bunch of facts, and randomly came up with conclusions that didn't even correlate with the information provided.

And that's a legitimate assessment, but to disregard that I did not use it as proof and that I did not have any proof would be a lie. I had proof. Whether or not you found it good proof is up to you.
One of my friends doesn't like Martin Lawrence. Through this, I'm going to assess that my friend is racist. After all, Martin Lawrence is black, and my friend doesn't like him. Therefore, I've used facts to back up my opinion that my friend must be racist.

Makes sense, right?

I firmly believe that critics are biased towards extreme films in any genre.
Well, you go on feeling that way then. If you wan't to be so stubborn that you won't even listen to the facts in front of you, go ahead.

LordSimen

09-09-2007, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Quigles
And yet, you've given to evidence to back this up.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Originally posted by Quigles

The big difference being, the facts you're offering in no way support your opinion.

Ah, but they do. You just disagree with them and thus disregard them.

Originally posted by Quigles

No, you didn't. The facts I used actually proved the points I was making. I didn't even have to tell people HOW they proved my point, because the information was freely available for them to see. You, on the other hand, took a bunch of facts, and randomly came up with conclusions that didn't even correlate with the information provided.

No, you disagree with my facts and THUS disregard them. I have presented facts, just as you have. I drew conclusions to my facts, just as you have. Get over yourself. Your facts aren't any more or less legitimate than mine.

Originally posted by Quigles
Well, you go on feeling that way then. If you wan't to be so stubborn that you won't even listen to the facts in front of you, go ahead.

You're more stubborn than I am. At least I am acknowledging that you presented facts to me, you're ignoring mine and disregarding my entire argument. YOU are the stubborn and arrogant one. Get over yourself.

Quigles

09-09-2007, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
Your facts aren't any more or less legitimate than mine.
...

Would somebody who has read this entire thread please tell me if the facts that LordSimen presented hold any merit whatsoever?

LordSimen

09-09-2007, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Quigles
...

Would somebody who has read this entire thread please tell me if the facts that LordSimen presented hold any merit whatsoever?

I would also like to say you completely asked me to prove things that are almost impossible to prove, especially with your personal line of thinking. Trying to prove that people are bias against something, particularly a large group of people, is much harder than to say "Hey, this one movie got an 85%! They must love horror movies!" I could easily have mentioned a horror film that got a 30% rating, and you would have simply brushed it off with "That's cause the movie sucked." No matter what fact I present in front of you, you will always disregard it in some off-hand manner, even if the fact itself mirrored your own.

Also pushed me into only using recent examples by explaining that they use to be biased but are not anymore, which caused me to use examples such as the use of words such as "Torture Porn." Yet, you brushed that off by saying that some films deserve to be labeled as such (note, this, in and of itself, is your opinion that they deserve that label, and nothing more. I suppose someone should call you arrogant for having an opinion on that).

I show that in the last 5 years that there have been barely any horror movies which have been given a 90% or more on the tomato rating, and you tell me I'm "not looking at this the right way," when that FACT shows that even the great horror movies of the last 5 years get snuffed with a below 90% rating and the great movies of other genres get a 90% or higher. That is a bias. But I'll suppose you brush that off as well, saying that most horror movies arn't that good. This is also just your opinion. But I suppose because you're the great, almighty Quigles, you're allowed to use your opinion to support your argument and I'm not allowed to follow suit.

You brush off facts and ignore them. You state your opinion just as much as I state mine. Your facts are no more or less legitimate than my own.

Mr.HyDe807

09-09-2007, 02:49 AM

:SPOILER WARNING FOR THE PRESTIGE:

Guys, if we dont chill, this is probably gonna end up like the movie Prestige, only without copies and magic.:D

Quigles

09-09-2007, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
I would also like to say you completely asked me to prove things that are almost impossible to prove
AND DOESN'T THAT TELL YOU ANYTHING?

If you can't even find any evidence to back up your opinion on something, then how the hell can you argue in defense of it?

I've provided plenty of facts that actually do, without a doubt, defend my position. All you've done is complained that an 85% positive ranking of THE DESCENT wasn't positive enough, and compared two semi-poorly reviewed movies that somehow "proved" critics were biased against horror films since the drama had a 5% higher rating. C'mon, are you kidding me?

For the record, I intentionally asked you those questions because when I debate things with people, I've learned it's easier to have them understand your thinking when they discover the evidence themselves. For me to simply state something, it almost always guarantees the person will ignore it, no matter how compelling the argument.

Trying to prove that people are bias against something, particularly a large group of people, is much harder than to say "Hey, this one movie got an 85%! They must love horror movies!"
I never said that a horror movie getting an 85% proved that critics loved horror films. I said that it's one example (out of MANY) proving that there's hardly any bias against them. If a horror movie is good, it will be reviewed as such.

Yet, you brushed that off by saying that some films deserve to be labeled as such (note, this, in and of itself, is your opinion that they deserve that label, and nothing more. I suppose someone should call you arrogant for having an opinion on that).
I have no feelings whatsoever on the term "torture porn", or whether or not its applicable. My actual point was that films only get labeled with that when the person reviewing them feels they were nothing more than senseless gore and torture sequences, with little in the way of redeeming qualities. I'm pretty sure I was already clear on this.

I show that in the last 5 years that there have been barely any horror movies which have been given a 90% or more on the tomato rating, and you tell me I'm "not looking at this the right way," when that FACT shows that even the great horror movies of the last 5 years get snuffed with a below 90% rating and the great movies of other genres get a 90% or higher. That is a bias. But I'll suppose you brush that off as well, saying that most horror movies arn't that good. This is also just your opinion.
Over 90% usually indicates a masterpiece. And since there's no way to prove that any horror films from the past ten years are actually worthy of a 90% ranking, your incessant babbling on about it is pointless.

Once again, you seem more upset that critics aren't completely in love with horror films than anything. So-called "boring" movies like THE QUEEN (your words, not mine) are getting all this praise, but masterpieces like HOSTEL only get 58% positive reviews. Oh no!

Goddamn, what a worthless fucking debate.

But I suppose because you're the great, almighty Quigles, you're allowed to use your opinion to support your argument and I'm not allowed to follow suit.
Not at all. I encourage you to follow suit. It's just that, you haven't done so yet. All you've done is throw out facts that don't remotely prove the points you're making. You haven't once shown that critics are biased against horror films, or that any horror film in the past ten years actually deserves a rating higher than 90%.

But hey, at least you're starting to understand how amazing I am. I'll give you that.

Your facts are no more or less legitimate than my own.
Yes, they are. Do you know why? Because mine actually proved various aspects of what you were saying wrong. None of the facts you provided proved anything I said wrong, many of them actually assisting me in my points.

^ This isn't even debatable. Whereas you made wild claims and allegations, I provided evidence. And in the real world, when there's a battle over opinion vs. facts, facts always win.

LordSimen

09-09-2007, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Quigles
AND DOESN'T THAT TELL YOU ANYTHING?

No.

Originally posted by Quigles
If you can't even find any evidence to back up your opinion on something, then how the hell can you argue in defense of it?

I did. You ignored it.

Originally posted by Quigles
I've provided plenty of facts that actually do, without a doubt, defend my position. All you've done is complained that an 85% positive ranking of THE DESCENT wasn't positive enough, and compared two semi-poorly reviewed movies that somehow "proved" critics were biased against horror films since the drama had a 5% higher rating. C'mon, are you kidding me?

I have provided facts that do as well. You should stop ignoring other people's facts and stop acting like yours are the end all be all of opinons.

Originally posted by Quigles

I never said that a horror movie getting an 85% proved that critics loved horror films. I said that it's one example (out of MANY) proving that there's hardly any bias against them. If a horror movie is good, it will be reviewed as such.

You used it as evidence. Just as I used that most horror films do not ever get past a 90% rating. If you cant understand that simple logic, that's YOUR problem.

Originally posted by Quigles

For the record, I intentionally asked you those questions because when I debate things with people, I've learned it's easier to have them understand your thinking when they discover the evidence themselves. For me to simply state something, it almost always guarantees the person will ignore it, no matter how compelling the argument.

Your last sentence perfectly describes what you're doing.

Originally posted by Quigles

Over 90% usually indicates a masterpiece. And since there's no way to prove that any horror films from the past ten years are actually worthy of a 90% ranking, your incessant babbling on about it is pointless.

And there's no way for you to prove that they don't, just as there's no way for you to prove that critics arn't being biased towards horror films. I've shown facts, you ignore them. Stop doing that.

Originally posted by Quigles

Once again, you seem more upset that critics aren't completely in love with horror films than anything. So-called "boring" movies like THE QUEEN (your words, not mine) are getting all this praise, but masterpieces like HOSTEL only get 58% positive reviews. Oh no!

I'm upset because Critics overly bash and criticize horror movies while overpraising other movies. You're upset that people don't agree with your opinion that "critics aren't biased against horror films." That's why you're arguing, just like I'm arguing because the critics are biased in my view. Get over it.

Originally posted by Quigles

Goddamn, what a worthless fucking debate.

You're the one who challenged me. If it's so worthless you should have never have said anything or called MY FUCKING GOD DAMN OPINION A "CROCK OF SHIT."

Originally posted by Quigles
Not at all. I encourage you to follow suit. It's just that, you haven't done so yet. All you've done is throw out facts that don't remotely prove the points you're making. You haven't once shown that critics are biased against horror films, or that any horror film in the past ten years actually deserves a rating higher than 90%.

Because you ignore my facts. You choose to ignore what you don't believe, and that, my friend, is sad. I acknowledged your facts and countered them, and even answered your god damn questions and gave you examples like YOU ASKED. If you were going to ignore them you shouldn't have asked the god damn questions.

Originally posted by Quigles

Yes, they are. Do you know why? Because mine actually proved various aspects of what you were saying wrong. None of the facts you provided proved anything I said wrong, many of them actually assisting me in my points.

No more or less than my facts proved mine. You said critics aren't biased, and I showed that the best of horror gets around 80% while the best of others gets 90% or more. If you don't agree with that fact, that's fine, but don't FUCKING ignore what I posted and then say later I didn't say it.

Originally posted by Quigles

^ This isn't even debatable. Whereas you made wild claims and allegations, I provided evidence. And in the real world, when there's a battle over opinion vs. facts, facts always win.

No. It is debatable. You post facts and state your opinion and then IGNORE every other opinion someone else says. You are not only ARROGANT you are also incredibly STUBBORN.

Quigles

09-09-2007, 04:57 AM

Fine, whatever. Fuck it. I'm done.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4876/explodely9.gif

FatSakHead

09-09-2007, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Quigles
Fine, whatever. Fuck it. I'm done.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4876/explodely9.gif

You know what, it's hillarious, because your picture reminded me of what I originally thought about doing, which was telling him that my head exploded.

Scarfather

09-09-2007, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
You are not only ARROGANT you are also incredibly STUBBORN.

http://fukung.net/images/3895/Pot%20Kettle%20Black.jpg

God, horror films these days suck.

psycheoutsteve

09-09-2007, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Quigles
...

Would somebody who has read this entire thread please tell me if the facts that LordSimen presented hold any merit whatsoever?

As I see it, LordSimen hasn't provided any real proof defending his point. I don't see how a 5 percent difference proves anything about critics being bias towards horror films. I think The Descent and 1408 are evidence that horror films can achieve higher ratings.

I believe making a good horror film takes considerable effort though because you have to get audiences to suspend their disbelief with a majority of your film's content, (this is often the case in horror). Making a good drama is still difficult, yet probably easier than making a serious horror flick because dramas are more atoned to real world settings with real problems. I think for many people it's harder to relate to horror films, especially ones that feature nothing but violence and gore and have," little in the way of redeeming qualities," to quote Quigles. This doesn't mean that critics are bias towards the genre of horror though, not at all in fact. Whenever a decent horror flick comes along and offers something more than the standard violence and gore it succeeds. Take Alien for example, what a well done, well designed, developed, scary feature that was. That movie was a huge success and it was one of the first horror movies to rise above the usual campy/gory fare because it connected the audience to the characters and suspense.

So, IMO the good horror films don't rely on cheap tricks and gore, they give critics a reason to believe in them. If you love films that haven't received great reviews from critics then I respect that LordSimen. However, just because the films haven't been adored by critics doesn't mean the critics are biased. I know I can't see movies like Hostel offering anything besides violence, gore, and nudity. Come on man, Eli Roth and the like pretty much know what they're doing when they create those films, (they sure as hell aren't going for character development). Some horror films are just out to shock and disturb and for people like myself that's not quite enough to make it a good film. Those films are created with the hardcore horror fan in mind and intentionally don't appeal to the mainstream. That is why I'm so confused by your reasoning Lord Simen, why do you expect critics, (who review films of all genres) to consider these movies great when so many are made to defy the tastes of mainstream audiences?

The truth is films like Hostel don't want to connect with audiences over many tastes, they seek one taste to appeal to. When a film does this it's usually only successful with a core audience, so don't expect it to bode well with critics.

someguy

09-09-2007, 01:31 PM

Aw man, I wanna continue the fun.

Simen, no one is IGNORING your "facts." Quigles (along with me) see that you did indeed post facts, but they have no support towards your conclusion. Hell, we've both explained WHY we think your facts provide no support to your conclusions and yet your only defense is "GUYS STOP IGNORING MY FACTS THEY'RE RIGHT THERE AND PROVE I'M RIGHT."

Quigles isn't even acting like his stuff is the best. He is just saying that since the facts he provided actually back up the points he brings up (and they do) that they have more weight. Your examples of evidence are very poor. I feel like I'm gonna beat you over the head here with repeating myself again, but let me explain why.

1) Horror movies don't get over 90%: What makes 90% the standard here? Why not 80% or 70%? Those are good ratings also, and you can't expect lots of films to be put on such a high standard. If you went down 10 or 20 percent, you'd see that lots (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/devils_backbone/) of (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ginger_snaps/) horror (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/descent/) films (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/slither/) are (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10004048-tale_of_two_sisters/) given (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sixth_sense/) quite (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bubba_hotep/) good (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dawn_of_the_dead/) ratings (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dog_soldiers/) by (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/frailty/) critics (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/isle/) and (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/land_of_the_dead/) not (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ring/) the (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/brotherhood_of_the_wolf/) opposite (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gozu/) . (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1113170-pulse/) If horror films were truly biased by critics, there would have to be a very limited number of positive consensus' but I'd say that the amount of evidence I put up above doesn't exactly prove that. The standard you put up is a very difficult one to get to and it's no wonder why you'll think that critics dislike horror films if that if the point you want to start at. I can easily go off and make an argument saying that recent comedies are biased against because they don't get 95% or above, or that dramas are biased in favour because they don't have many movies under 5%. Well, no duh I'm gonna think that they're biased because I'm immediately holding things at a ridiculous standard.

2) Black Dahlia gets 35%, Final Destination gets 30%: This was repeatedly explained, but I'll say it again. There is no correlation between the two. I did my John/Jane/Jared thing and you even said that it was a fair assessment, but went on about how I said you provided no proof. I meant that you didn't prove your opinion, you just gave two facts (the ratings) without any real relation and said that they are in fact related enough to prove critics are biased towards horror films. That's simply poor evidence.

I just don't want you thinking that your facts are being ignored because they're not. Quigles did address your evidence when you first brought it up and disregarded it because it didn't prove anything you were saying. From what I've read you haven't really provided any reason why your proofs are legitimate, you keep saying that it's ignored or that it's good evidence because you provided facts and made a conclusion about it. Well, you did provide facts but I'm saying (and I guess Quigles is also saying) that your conclusion from them is wrong.

FatSakHead

09-09-2007, 01:44 PM

I'm going to use LordSimen's logic and say that critics are biased for horror movies and biased towards dramas, because Land of the Dead got a fresh tomatometer rating while Lord of War got a rotten one.

Quigles

09-09-2007, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by FatSakHead
I'm going to use LordSimen's logic and say that critics are biased for horror movies and biased towards dramas, because Land of the Dead got a fresh tomatometer rating while Lord of War got a rotten one.
Yes, and critics are biased in favor of silly action movies, since SHOOT 'EM UP got a 65%, and THE TERMINAL only got 61%.

P.S. someguy and psycheoutsteve, can I hug you?

LordSimen

09-09-2007, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Scarfather
http://fukung.net/images/3895/Pot%20Kettle%20Black.jpg

God, horror films these days suck.

Funny, I was going to use that exact picture when someone called me arrogant earlier in this thread. Too bad Quigles is the one whose truly iarrogant, ignoring my facts and refusing to acknowledge what I've said, regardless of the fact that half of the information he SPECIFICALLY ASKED ME TO POST.

As I see it, LordSimen hasn't provided any real proof defending his point. I don't see how a 5 percent difference proves anything about critics being bias towards horror films. I think The Descent and 1408 are evidence that horror films can achieve higher ratings.

The Descent and 1408 are evidence that the best horror can offer will always get a lower grade than the best drama and other genres can offer. As I've stated before, those movies get stuck 70-89% ratings while the best of drama and other genres get the ratings of 90-100%. Yes, they are highly praised, but no, they aren't treated the same as other films. They are still treated as horror films which, in many Critics minds, can't be as good as other movies.

I believe making a good horror film takes considerable effort though because you have to get audiences to suspend their disbelief with a majority of your film's content, (this is often the case in horror). Making a good drama is still difficult, yet probably easier than making a serious horror flick because dramas are more atoned to real world settings with real problems. I think for many people it's harder to relate to horror films, especially ones that feature nothing but violence and gore and have," little in the way of redeeming qualities," to quote Quigles. This doesn't mean that critics are bias towards the genre of horror though, not at all in fact. Whenever a decent horror flick comes along and offers something more than the standard violence and gore it succeeds. Take Alien for example, what a well done, well designed, developed, scary feature that was. That movie was a huge success and it was one of the first horror movies to rise above the usual campy/gory fare because it connected the audience to the characters and suspense.

Making any movie requires you to get the audiences to suspend their disbelief with a majority of the film's content. 90% of films out there are fiction in nature and thus none are real. You constantly have to suspend your disbelief when watching any film. Alien, as much as it is loved today, still wouldn't have had a 100% if rotten tomatoes were released back in the day. The reason for this being there were still quite a few people back then who did not like the movie, for whatever reason. The only reason it is such a highly praised movie is because the people who loved it got older and the people who hated it stopped reviewing. I don't see how Alien is any more unbelievable than any other horror movie.

So, IMO the good horror films don't rely on cheap tricks and gore, they give critics a reason to believe in them. If you love films that haven't received great reviews from critics then I respect that LordSimen. However, just because the films haven't been adored by critics doesn't mean the critics are biased. I know I can't see movies like Hostel offering anything besides violence, gore, and nudity. Come on man, Eli Roth and the like pretty much know what they're doing when they create those films, (they sure as hell aren't going for character development). Some horror films are just out to shock and disturb and for people like myself that's not quite enough to make it a good film. Those films are created with the hardcore horror fan in mind and intentionally don't appeal to the mainstream. That is why I'm so confused by your reasoning Lord Simen, why do you expect critics, (who review films of all genres) to consider these movies great when so many are made to defy the tastes of mainstream audiences?

When a film is being called a "porno" based around it's genre, then yes, the critics are biased against that film. When you have a man like John Carpenter released a masterpiece and so many critics bash him for being a "pornographer of violence," then yes, the critics in those cases are BIASED against his movies due to their violent content. I'm not expecting every critic's ratings to reflect mine, no, I'm expecting critics to treat horror films as if they were any other film which they do not in any way, shape or form.

Why do I expect critics to consider these movies great? I don't. I expect them to rate the movies fairly, regardless of their content.

The truth is films like Hostel don't want to connect with audiences over many tastes, they seek one taste to appeal to. When a film does this it's usually only successful with a core audience, so don't expect it to bode well with critics.

Hostel is one of those movies I love but I don't expect to get great reviews from critics for the sole reason of it's content and because of the nature of the film. I only listed it in this thread because QUIGLES specifically asked me to post movies that I felt deserved higher ratings. If Quigles hadn't have asked me to post my OPINION of what films didn't get rated fairly, I would have stuck to facts. But because QUIGLES decided to ask my OPINION, every one in this thread believes I'm arrogant.

Aw man, I wanna continue the fun.

Simen, no one is IGNORING your "facts." Quigles (along with me) see that you did indeed post facts, but they have no support towards your conclusion. Hell, we've both explained WHY we think your facts provide no support to your conclusions and yet your only defense is "GUYS STOP IGNORING MY FACTS THEY'RE RIGHT THERE AND PROVE I'M RIGHT."

Yes. They are. You're only explanation for why my facts provide no support has been that you don't agree with them. Come up with better reasons, please.

Quigles isn't even acting like his stuff is the best. He is just saying that since the facts he provided actually back up the points he brings up (and they do) that they have more weight. Your examples of evidence are very poor. I feel like I'm gonna beat you over the head here with repeating myself again, but let me explain why.

Yes. He is. He ignores how my facts provide support for my claim and acts as if his are the holy grail of facts, when they are no more different than mine. The examples I provided are not poor at all.

1) Horror movies don't get over 90%: What makes 90% the standard here? Why not 80% or 70%? Those are good ratings also, and you can't expect lots of films to be put on such a high standard. If you went down 10 or 20 percent, you'd see that lots of horror films are given quite good ratings by critics and not the opposite . If horror films were truly biased by critics, there would have to be a very limited number of positive consensus' but I'd say that the amount of evidence I put up above doesn't exactly prove that. The standard you put up is a very difficult one to get to and it's no wonder why you'll think that critics dislike horror films if that if the point you want to start at. I can easily go off and make an argument saying that recent comedies are biased against because they don't get 95% or above, or that dramas are biased in favour because they don't have many movies under 5%. Well, no duh I'm gonna think that they're biased because I'm immediately holding things at a ridiculous standard.

Because 90% is the holy grail of ratings. A movie that receives a rating of 90% or higher is the best any given genre has to offer. This is why it is the standard in my personal opinion, and this is why I used it as a standard. If the BEST of horror always gets a rating of around 70-89%, and the BEST of drama and the like always gets around 90-100%, that is what you call a BIAS. In the critics mind a horror movie will never reach that holy grail of ratings, and none have in the past 5 years, while many dramas have. Of course there are many horror movies these days that are given GOOD ratings, but barely any are given GREAT ratings, even when wonderful ones like The Descent roll around. They're just given good. Because that's the best a horror movie can be to these critics: Simply good. Nothing more.

2) Black Dahlia gets 35%, Final Destination gets 30%: This was repeatedly explained, but I'll say it again. There is no correlation between the two. I did my John/Jane/Jared thing and you even said that it was a fair assessment, but went on about how I said you provided no proof. I meant that you didn't prove your opinion, you just gave two facts (the ratings) without any real relation and said that they are in fact related enough to prove critics are biased towards horror films. That's simply poor evidence.

Quigles asked me to specifically provide an example for my claim, if you people were going to say that no matter what example I posted it there would be no correlation between the two, he shouldn't have asked for an example. You guys ASKED for that example. Don't ask for something you're are automatically going to rule out before it's even presented.

I just don't want you thinking that your facts are being ignored because they're not. Quigles did address your evidence when you first brought it up and disregarded it because it didn't prove anything you were saying. From what I've read you haven't really provided any reason why your proofs are legitimate, you keep saying that it's ignored or that it's good evidence because you provided facts and made a conclusion about it. Well, you did provide facts but I'm saying (and I guess Quigles is also saying) that your conclusion from them is wrong.

My facts are very much so ignored. I repeatedly post why I used them, you guys ignore those reasons ten fold. My conclusion for them is not WRONG. The conclusion is my opinion. I could easily say that your conclusions based on Quigle's facts are wrong, because in the end all a conclusion is is your opinion.

I'm going to use LordSimen's logic and say that critics are biased for horror movies and biased towards dramas, because Land of the Dead got a fresh tomatometer rating while Lord of War got a rotten one.

Nice try, but I've already explained that's not the logic I'm using. Come again when you actually learn to read.

Scarfather

09-09-2007, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
Too bad Quigles is the one whose truly ignorant

http://fukung.net/images/3895/Pot%20Kettle%20Black.jpg

someguy

09-09-2007, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
Yes. They are. You're only explanation for why my facts provide no support has been that you don't agree with them. Come up with better reasons, please.

I assume you typed this without reading what followed after this, because I explained fully why your facts provide no support. Simply put, if you typed an article up for a publication using the conclusions and facts that you presented you would be laughed off. It's poor persuasive techniques. Very poor persuasive techniques.

Yes. He is. He ignores how my facts provide support for my claim and acts as if his are the holy grail of facts, when they are no more different than mine. The examples I provided are not poor at all.

Once again, you must have responded to this before the end of my post. Quigles did indeed respond to your points and logically showed how the evidence provided didn't support your conclusions. He never claimed that he had the holy grail of facts. He said that his use of sources to support his opinion are properly used while yours are not. That's not ego or claiming he is the best.

Because 90% is the holy grail of ratings. A movie that receives a rating of 90% or higher is the best any given genre has to offer. This is why it is the standard in my personal opinion, and this is why I used it as a standard. If the BEST of horror always gets a rating of around 70-89%, and the BEST of drama and the like always gets around 90-100%, that is what you call a BIAS. In the critics mind a horror movie will never reach that holy grail of ratings, and none have in the past 5 years, while many dramas have. Of course there are many horror movies these days that are given GOOD ratings, but barely any are given GREAT ratings, even when wonderful ones like The Descent roll around. They're just given good. Because that's the best a horror movie can be to these critics: Simply good. Nothing more.

Over forty horror films received a 90% rating or higher, so you're 100% WRONG on critics never seeing horror movies as touching that 'holy grail.' Obviously they do see it. You're setting your standards too high again. Name me one person who finds an 85% rating 'simply good.' This is just your opinion coming into play again. You think a movie deserves a certain rating, but it doesn't get that rating so you call it a bias. Plus, you seriously have to see that drama films and horror films are entirely different from each other in almost every single way. You're saying that we should put movies like Saw and Hostel on the same level as things like Children of Men, and as a massive horror fan even I have to say that it's absofuckinglutely ridiculous to think that.

Quigles asked me to specifically provide an example for my claim, if you people were going to say that no matter what example I posted it there would be no correlation between the two, he shouldn't have asked for an example. You guys ASKED for that example. Don't ask for something you're are automatically going to rule out before it's even presented.

We're not saying that. It's up to YOU to explain how the two correlate. You can just show two things and then go 'oh they're together.' Tell us how they correspond to each other and how it proves that horror films are biased by critics. If you had a good explanation we would have been fine with it, but you didn't provide a good example at all. Hell, 2 more people came in here to tell you that your examples are shit and you still think that it's A-Ok stuff and backs you up 100%. Sorry, but your opinion hasn't backed up anything you've pointed out and despite our constant explanations of why you still ignore us.

My facts are very much so ignored. I repeatedly post why I used them, you guys ignore those reasons ten fold. My conclusion for them is not WRONG. The conclusion is my opinion. I could easily say that your conclusions based on Quigle's facts are wrong, because in the end all a conclusion is is your opinion.

Fuck me, of course we know your conclusion is your opinion. We're saying that your opinion is not supported or based in the facts you presented to support it. Is it really that hard for you to understand? We're not ignoring your facts, we're saying that your use of them is shitty shitty shitty. We're not even focusing on the conclusion here, we're focusing on how the conclusion was made. And your method of support for your conclusion is just bad.

LordSimen

09-09-2007, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Scarfather
http://fukung.net/images/3895/Pot%20Kettle%20Black.jpg

I meant to say arrogant.

Brando @$$ Fat

09-09-2007, 05:48 PM

Ouch, this thread is getting pretty damn heated. I'm going to a thread where there are more kitschy pictures of cats.

LordSimen

09-09-2007, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by someguy
I assume you typed this without reading what followed after this, because I explained fully why your facts provide no support. Simply put, if you typed an article up for a publication using the conclusions and facts that you presented you would be laughed off. It's poor persuasive techniques. Very poor persuasive techniques.[/B]

No, it's not poor persuasive techniques. It's facts that back up my opinion. If you don't agree with the facts, as I've stated before, that's your problem.

Originally posted by someguy

Once again, you must have responded to this before the end of my post. Quigles did indeed respond to your points and logically showed how the evidence provided didn't support your conclusions. He never claimed that he had the holy grail of facts. He said that his use of sources to support his opinion are properly used while yours are not. That's not ego or claiming he is the best.
[/B]

No. Quigles ignored my points and brushed them off. "You're looking at this the wrong way" is ignoring and avoiding the points I presented. He claimed he had the holy grail of facts in the same way that someone in this thread suggested that I was arrogant for believing in my own opinion. If that's egotistical, then he's egotistical for ignoring what I presented in front of him.

Originally posted by someguy
Over forty horror films received a 90% rating or higher, so you're 100% WRONG on critics never seeing horror movies as touching that 'holy grail.' Obviously they do see it. You're setting your standards too high again. Name me one person who finds an 85% rating 'simply good.' This is just your opinion coming into play again. You think a movie deserves a certain rating, but it doesn't get that rating so you call it a bias. Plus, you seriously have to see that drama films and horror films are entirely different from each other in almost every single way. You're saying that we should put movies like Saw and Hostel on the same level as things like Children of Men, and as a massive horror fan even I have to say that it's absofuckinglutely ridiculous to think that. [/B]

And over 20 dramas get that 90% rating or higher every year while over 40 have gotten it in the history of film, and most of those films reviewed in retrospect, not collecting the reviews from the time the movie was published. So you are 100% wrong on critics actually allowing a horror film to "touch the holy grail." They only do once in a while and most of the ones actually put on rotten tomatoes are classic films that have been reviewed in retrospect. WHen they were reviewed upon their first release, they didn't get so lucky with reviewers. Most of them, anyway. You think it's ridiculous, I don't.

Originally posted by someguy
We're not saying that. It's up to YOU to explain how the two correlate. You can just show two things and then go 'oh they're together.' Tell us how they correspond to each other and how it proves that horror films are biased by critics. If you had a good explanation we would have been fine with it, but you didn't provide a good example at all. Hell, 2 more people came in here to tell you that your examples are shit and you still think that it's A-Ok stuff and backs you up 100%. Sorry, but your opinion hasn't backed up anything you've pointed out and despite our constant explanations of why you still ignore us. [/B]

I did explain how the two correlate, you merely disagree and Quigles ignored them.That's fine and dandy, but don't even try to say I didn't show how they correlate. I did. I have backed everything I have posted up just as much as you have. It's not my fault Quigles brought his friends in to try and back up his holier than thou thought of himself.

Originally posted by someguy

Fuck me, of course we know your conclusion is your opinion. We're saying that your opinion is not supported or based in the facts you presented to support it. Is it really that hard for you to understand? We're not ignoring your facts, we're saying that your use of them is shitty shitty shitty. We're not even focusing on the conclusion here, we're focusing on how the conclusion was made. And your method of support for your conclusion is just bad. [/B]

But it is supported by what I have posted, as I have stressed then and again. It's not bad, and my use of them isn't shitty. I've drawn a logical conclusion from the facts I have presented and you guys choose to ignore it because you disagree with it.

psycheoutsteve

09-09-2007, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Quigles
Yes, and critics are biased in favor of silly action movies, since SHOOT 'EM UP got a 65%, and THE TERMINAL only got 61%.

P.S. someguy and psycheoutsteve, can I hug you?

Haha, no problem Quigles, but it seems we're going to have to present further logic to LordSimen here...at least one more paragraph before I give up trying...

LordSimen, I read your response to my previous post, but I'm not sure you got the point I was trying to make with the film Alien. I never said the film was more unbelievable than other films, in fact what I said was rather the opposite. Alien achieved a level of intense believability because the characters, plot, acting, set and creature design, and other elements were done so well. If Alien didn't have the previously listed characteristics then it would've been less believable. That's why horror films without the said characteristics are often perceived as a joke to critics. If it was released today I believe Alien would achieve 90 percent status on rotten tomatoes because it inspired so many other horror films.

About 30 years ago, the genre of horror went through significant change. Critics in those years were probably a little bit bias to bash Carpenter's The Thing, (because I thought it had a lot to offer) but that was then and this is now. With the release of many other well received horror pictures I believe critics have come to respect a good horror picture.

If you're not completely satisfied with the ratings 1408 and The Descent received then I'm a little dumbfounded. I thought they received awesome ratings. If you're going to say that because horror movies haven't received a 90 percent rating or greater in recent years that critics are biased towards horror, I'm not sure I follow that logic. As I said before, making an air-tight, believable drama is probably easier to do than making an air-tight, believable horror picture. You have to suspend your disbelief so much more to accept some of the events in a horror picture. Which is more easy to believe, two people falling in love or an alien that bursts out of people's chests? If the movie has more to offer than gore and violence it can convince you of the possibility of the latter choice, but if not then the movie falls on its face. I'm not sure if there's even been a horror picture in recent years that deserves a 90 percent rating on rotten tomatoes. That's a near perfect film, something very hard to achieve.

If you don't believe dramas like The Queen are worth 90 percent or more that's fine, but when a horror picture comes around that deserves 90 percent it will get it.

LordSimen

09-09-2007, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by psycheoutsteve
LordSimen, I read your response to my previous post, but I'm not sure you got the point I was trying to make with the film Alien. I never said the film was more unbelievable than other films, in fact what I said was rather the opposite. Alien achieved a level of intense believability because the characters, plot, acting, set and creature design, and other elements were done so well. If Alien didn't have the previously listed characteristics then it would've been less believable. That's why horror films without the said characteristics are often perceived as a joke to critics. If it was released today I believe Alien would achieve 90 percent status on rotten tomatoes because it inspired so many other horror films.

Obviously if a horror movie has those elements it still would be considered a joke to some critics, shown by the fact a movie such as The Descent gets an 85% instead of a 90% or higher.

Originally posted by psycheoutsteve
About 30 years ago, the genre of horror went through significant change. Critics in those years were probably a little bit bias to bash Carpenter's The Thing, (because I thought it had a lot to offer) but that was then and this is now. With the release of many other well received horror pictures I believe critics have come to respect a good horror picture.

I agree that there aren't as many horror-biased critics in today's world but my argument is not that they are all biased, but that there are many of them that still are. There are those who have no respect for horror films, as shown by labeling a lot of them with terms such as "pornography," just as they did back in the days of Carpenter and the Thing. When situations such as that spring it, it further shows that some people have not changed one bit.

Originally posted by psycheoutsteve
If you're not completely satisfied with the ratings 1408 and The Descent received then I'm a little dumbfounded. I thought they received awesome ratings. If you're going to say that because horror movies haven't received a 90 percent rating or greater in recent years that critics are biased towards horror, I'm not sure I follow that logic. As I said before, making an air-tight, believable drama is probably easier to do than making an air-tight, believable horror picture. You have to suspend your disbelief so much more to accept some of the events in a horror picture. Which is more easy to believe, two people falling in love or an alien that bursts out of people's chests? If the movie has more to offer than gore and violence it can convince you of the possibility of the latter choice, but if not then the movie falls on its face. I'm not sure if there's even been a horror picture in recent years that deserves a 90 percent rating on rotten tomatoes. That's a near perfect film, something very hard to achieve.

They received positive and good ratings, but not great ratings. The best of horror, as I've stated before, tends to get a 70-89% while the best of drama gets a 90% or higher. That is a bias and how people cannot understand or follow this logic is behind me. As a person with a hugely active imagination I've never once hated a film for being "unbelievable" and thus believability has never entered as a factor into my mind and I simply cannot fathom it despite you trying to explain it to me. It makes no sense to me and niether falling in love nor an alien bursting out of a person's chest seem too different. Each one requires you to believe that situation is happening, regardless of the events.

Originally posted by psycheoutsteve

If you don't believe dramas like The Queen are worth 90 percent or more that's fine, but when a horror picture comes around that deserves 90 percent it will get it.

One in a rare case will, but as I've shown, in the last 5 years there have been next to none which have despite some great works being released recently. So no, I disagree with you that if one deserves a 90 percent rating it will get it. Because it won't in my experience.

someguy

09-09-2007, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
No, it's not poor persuasive techniques. It's facts that back up my opinion. If you don't agree with the facts, as I've stated before, that's your problem.

Go show anyone who is in the English or persuasive writing area your "good" and "backed up" arguments and they will laugh.

No. Quigles ignored my points and brushed them off. "You're looking at this the wrong way" is ignoring and avoiding the points I presented. He claimed he had the holy grail of facts in the same way that someone in this thread suggested that I was arrogant for believing in my own opinion. If that's egotistical, then he's egotistical for ignoring what I presented in front of him.

That's not brushing it off. He told you what a better way of looking at it is. He's saying that your point isn't good because it isn't used properly. You're misinterpreting yet again, like you're misinterpreting when I said that you LOOKED like you were arrogant with me calling you it. He's not ignoring what you said, you're just choosing to think that. All you've presented in front of him is your opinion with badly put together evidence supporting it. And it's not an opinion to point out that it's badly done either. This is like if I said that Pan's Labyrinth was deserving of the foreign film Oscar and used www.cheese.org as my evidence. If someone tells me that it doesn't back up anything I said, does 'Well you shouldn't ignore my evidence and it's only your opinion if you think it's bad' make sense at all to you?

And over 20 dramas get that 90% rating or higher every year while over 40 have gotten it in the history of film, and most of those films reviewed in retrospect, not collecting the reviews from the time the movie was published. So you are 100% wrong on critics actually allowing a horror film to "touch the holy grail." They only do once in a while and most of the ones actually put on rotten tomatoes are classic films that have been reviewed in retrospect. WHen they were reviewed upon their first release, they didn't get so lucky with reviewers. Most of them, anyway. You think it's ridiculous, I don't.

Misinterpreting again. You said this specifically:

"In the critics mind a horror movie will [b]never reach that holy grail of ratings, and none have in the past 5 years, while many dramas have."

I took that part of your statement for what it says, critics don't find horror movies worthy of reaching your beloved "holy grail." Obviously that is not true no matter what the retrospect is, because they have given horror movies a 90% rating or higher. Plus, you took my ridiculous part as being towards the holy grail part when that was not what I meant at all. I meant that you cannot take horror movies and dramas and put them on the same level. They're entirely different from each other. Quigles said this earlier, but I guess it bears repeating.

Horror movies are more likely to gross more money than a drama. Studios tend to throw horror movies out in theatres a lot lately because they're doing nicely in the financial department. Most horror movies that are coming out are about giving the viewer a good scare and a fun time. A drama is the opposite of this. They tend to not make much money in the box office and it's kind of silly to make a drama fun or entertaining. Because of this, studios would rather put their money in a drama that is good in quality so critical and audience response will spark more of an interest to people. Plus, studios want to win awards like Oscars or Golden Globes and in order to do that you need a good movie. That's most likely why dramas are given high ratings, because more effort is put into getting something really excellent out there. For studios horror movies are more focused on the entertainment aspect.

I did explain how the two correlate, you merely disagree and Quigles ignored them.That's fine and dandy, but don't even try to say I didn't show how they correlate. I did. I have backed everything I have posted up just as much as you have. It's not my fault Quigles brought his friends in to try and back up his holier than thou thought of himself.

Please go back and quote your explanation so I can read it again, or type another one. Just to let you know by the way, I am not one of Quigles friends if you do think that.

But it is supported by what I have posted, as I have stressed then and again. It's not bad, and my use of them isn't shitty. I've drawn a logical conclusion from the facts I have presented and you guys choose to ignore it because you disagree with it.

I've explained to you how it is not supported, and all you've done is just say 'nuh uh.' I have not ignored what you have said, I repeatedly showed how you did not support your opinion with it. You keep telling me that I'm just ignoring it though and your evidence still holds up. How about you stop ignoring the fact that I'm aware of what you've said. If we're 'choosing' to ignore your logical conclusions (which Quigles and I have disproven more than once) then you must be choosing to ignore our responses challenging them.

LordSimen

09-09-2007, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by someguy
Go show anyone who is in the English or persuasive writing area your "good" and "backed up" arguments and they will laugh.

Good for them.

Originally posted by someguy

That's not brushing it off. He told you what a better way of looking at it is. He's saying that your point isn't good because it isn't used properly. You're misinterpreting yet again, like you're misinterpreting when I said that you LOOKED like you were arrogant with me calling you it. He's not ignoring what you said, you're just choosing to think that. All you've presented in front of him is your opinion with badly put together evidence supporting it. And it's not an opinion to point out that it's badly done either. This is like if I said that Pan's Labyrinth was deserving of the foreign film Oscar and used www.cheese.org as my evidence. If someone tells me that it doesn't back up anything I said, does 'Well you shouldn't ignore my evidence and it's only your opinion if you think it's bad' make sense at all to you?

Yes, that is brushing it off. He brushed off my argument because it wasn't within his line of thinking. Thus, he ignored it. That's brushing it off. He's the arrogant one, not me.

Originally posted by someguy

Misinterpreting again. You said this specifically:

"In the critics mind a horror movie will never reach that holy grail of ratings, and none have in the past 5 years, while many dramas have."

I took that part of your statement for what it says, critics don't find horror movies worthy of reaching your beloved "holy grail." Obviously that is not true no matter what the retrospect is, because they have given horror movies a 90% rating or higher. Plus, you took my ridiculous part as being towards the holy grail part when that was not what I meant at all. I meant that you cannot take horror movies and dramas and put them on the same level. They're entirely different from each other. Quigles said this earlier, but I guess it bears repeating.

Well then I apologize for wording what I said badly. I should have said most and barely any rather than absolutes. I apologize for this.

I can put horror movies and dramas and put them on the same level, to not put them on the same level is to be biased towards one or the other.

Originally posted by someguy

Please go back and quote your explanation so I can read it again, or type another one. Just to let you know by the way, I am not one of Quigles friends if you do think that. \

I'm not going to rewrite what I've already wrote a hundred times, and if you're not one of Quigle's friends then you surely act like it taking every word he says to be god-like and every word I say as shit.

Originally posted by someguy

I've explained to you how it is not supported, and all you've done is just say 'nuh uh.' I have not ignored what you have said, I repeatedly showed how you did not support your opinion with it. You keep telling me that I'm just ignoring it though and your evidence still holds up. How about you stop ignoring the fact that I'm aware of what you've said. If we're 'choosing' to ignore your logical conclusions (which Quigles and I have disproven more than once) then you must be choosing to ignore our responses challenging them.

You interpret my facts one way, I interpret them another way. You have not proven how my facts are wrong in any way other than to say "I disagree with your findings." There has yet to be any "disproven" facts in this thread. You choose to ignore facts I present, just like Quigles, and ignore my analysis of the facts.

FatSakHead

09-09-2007, 07:17 PM

To LordSimen:

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i98/JustinK665/hilarious-1.jpg

Scarfather

09-09-2007, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
I meant to say arrogant.

http://fukung.net/images/3895/Pot%20Kettle%20Black.jpg

LordSimen

09-09-2007, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Scarfather
http://fukung.net/images/3895/Pot%20Kettle%20Black.jpg

Got anything else to contribute or are you going to continue to be a useless member of the discussion?

someguy

09-09-2007, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
Good for them.

Yes, good for the people who are clearly experienced in using facts to back up their opinions.

Yes, that is brushing it off. He brushed off my argument because it wasn't within his line of thinking. Thus, he ignored it. That's brushing it off. He's the arrogant one, not me.

It looks like you're only seeing the first sentence of what he said. Let me show you what came after it.

Here, do this: make a list of action and horror movies from those years that you think SHOULD have over 90% ratings. Now compare them with the other 90% movies.

That is not brushing your argument off at all, he's saying that the movies you find deserving of a 90% rating or higher may not be in the same level as the movies that do get such high ratings. Basically, it's a difference of opinion and not a bias.

Well then I apologize for wording what I said badly. I should have said most and barely any rather than absolutes. I apologize for this.

I can put horror movies and dramas and put them on the same level, to not put them on the same level is to be biased towards one or the other.

Not it's not. Quality doesn't run on one universal scale, films have different intentions or aspects to them. This is like when people complain that Ebert is bad because he gives The Honeymooners three stars but Fight Club gets 2. By saying that, you're putting those two movies on the same level and that's stupid to do because they're the opposite from each other in every way. A film should be judged by what it is and what it wants to accomplish. Putting all movies on the same judging method is plain bad.

I'm not going to rewrite what I've already wrote a hundred times, and if you're not one of Quigle's friends then you surely act like it taking every word he says to be god-like and every word I say as shit.

Ever hear of the terms agree and disagree? I'm sorry, I guess you haven't. Clearly I must think Quigles is God-like because I just have the same line of thinking as him on certain things. Holy fucking shit, do you really think this? That anyone who agrees with someone else wants to just start sucking their dick and is immediately in cahoots with them? Here's something you can do. It's called accepting that more than one person could have the same opinion on something and be entirely unrelated. This is just another example of your constant baseless points that have no merit or support. Good work there.

And to respond about the whole relationship with the two movies, I read back and found nothing explaining their correlation. All you said was that they're both mediocre films and the drama got a higher rating because it's not a horror film. That doesn't explain anything at all. That doesn't prove there is a bias. Explain to me how you think that it proves what you're saying. And don't give me the broken record about how it explains what you mean perfectly and that I'm just ignoring it because I disagree. That's bullshit, anyone can see that it doesn't make any sense in proving your argument. By using those two examples as proof of a bias, you're suggesting that critics intentionally gave The Black Dahlia a higher rating so it wouldn't receive an equal or lower RT average than Final Destination. And putting it that way exposes how ridiculous it sounds.

You interpret my facts one way, I interpret them another way. You have not proven how my facts are wrong in any way other than to say "I disagree with your findings." There has yet to be any "disproven" facts in this thread. You choose to ignore facts I present, just like Quigles, and ignore my analysis of the facts.

I have proven your use of the facts to be wrong in justifying your points, I have not proven the facts to be wrong. The facts are there, and you STILL don't seem to understand the difference between spouting off facts and applying them. I am not ignoring your facts, I'm quite aware of them. I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just saying how your use of them doesn't support your opinions. I've repeated this so many times and yet you continue to say I'm just ignoring your points. I really don't get you, and if you truly believe that I am ignoring your points why don't you clarify them a little more for me? Or is not ignoring them admitting that they do support your opinion strongly?

FatSakHead

09-09-2007, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
Got anything else to contribute or are you going to continue to be a useless member of the discussion?

http://fukung.net/images/3895/Pot%20Kettle%20Black.jpg

Scarfather

09-09-2007, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
Got anything else to contribute or are you going to continue to be a useless member of the discussion?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/collective/dnaimages/gallery/directordvd/2.jpg

someguy

09-09-2007, 08:04 PM

I'm not a fan of people who try to exhaust the other person into quitting on a discussion, which is seriously the only reason why I'm continuing.

AceD

09-09-2007, 08:04 PM

"There has yet to be any "disproven" facts in this thread. You choose to ignore facts I present, just like Quigles, and ignore my analysis of the facts."

Well, then get ready for this, I am about to totally destroy your argument that critics like dramas more than horror when films are close in quality.
Okay. You've gone on and on and on about BLACK DELILAH and FINAL DESTINATION. Fine. I'll use the EXACT SAME LOGIC you did. Let's take URBAN LEGEND: FINAL CUT. It scores a 9%. Pretty bad, right? Now how about the romantic drama DOWN TO YOU? Oh, golly, it only scored 4%! The ONLY conclusion must be that when two bad movies are seperated by 5 percentage points, the lower one MUST be just because of the bias of the critics! So critics inflate their view of horror films and hate romantic dramas! OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

Please. That's exactly what you did in comparing TBD and FD. Doesn't work. You can't compare two movies (especially from different genres) totally equally. If you were going to try, you'd have to have at least 5 points be your swing, so that if two movies scored within five points, you should call them equal. Or, you could just be a reasonable person and not try to compare two films.**

Look, Simien, even if your points were totally solid, your argument sure isn't. I really can't believe you don't see that. I'm not saying every argument against you is totally sound, but that's not relevant to what YOU are saying. And tha logic doesn't work.

Finally, Simien, you are TOTALLY off on the torture porn thing. No logical person is calling Hostel a porno. The term torture porn means that the film seems to be made for PEOPLE WHO GET OFF ON WATCHING PEOPLE GET TORTURE. It has no connectiong to 'real' porn other than the fact that it is material that tickles someone's jollies. Your idea of what they mean when they say torture porn is just flat wrong. So there you go, take and learn.

**(and for the record, my whole point with the RottenTomato thing is that you can't quantify two different movies and use that scale to judge them. You just can't. So please don't come back at me with another comparasin, because you know that could go on forever. I think the argument is stupid no matter whose case you are trying to make).

FatSakHead

09-09-2007, 08:09 PM

Honestly someguy, is there really anything more you can say that hasn't been said already in this discussion? You continue to repeat the facts and stating your argument while LordSimen continues to claim you and Quiggles are ignoring his "facts".

someguy

09-09-2007, 08:12 PM

Uh oh, looks like AceD is joining in who is CLEARLY A FRIEND OF QUIGLES, ME, FATSAKHEAD AND ANYONE ELSE WHO DISAGREES WITH LORDSIMEN.

FatSakHead

09-09-2007, 08:16 PM

THE MOVEMENT IS GROWING

LordSimen

09-09-2007, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by someguy
That is not brushing your argument off at all, he's saying that the movies you find deserving of a 90% rating or higher may not be in the same level as the movies that do get such high ratings. Basically, it's a difference of opinion and not a bias. \

Yes. that is COMPLETELY brushing off my argument because he does interpret the facts as I interpreted them. I clearly explained how it makes it bias and he chose to ignore that because it didn't fit within his own thoughts.

Originally posted by someguy
Not it's not. Quality doesn't run on one universal scale, films have different intentions or aspects to them. This is like when people complain that Ebert is bad because he gives The Honeymooners three stars but Fight Club gets 2. By saying that, you're putting those two movies on the same level and that's stupid to do because they're the opposite from each other in every way. A film should be judged by what it is and what it wants to accomplish. Putting all movies on the same judging method is plain bad.

Every film should be judged on it's own merits, true, but Dramas shouldn't be put on a higher scale than horror movies or visa versa. Doing that makes you become bias.

Originally posted by someguy
Ever hear of the terms agree and disagree? I'm sorry, I guess you haven't. Clearly I must think Quigles is God-like because I just have the same line of thinking as him on certain things. Holy fucking shit, do you really think this? That anyone who agrees with someone else wants to just start sucking their dick and is immediately in cahoots with them? Here's something you can do. It's called accepting that more than one person could have the same opinion on something and be entirely unrelated. This is just another example of your constant baseless points that have no merit or support. Good work there.

It's not that you agree, it's that you also treat his opinion as if it was some holy ghost or something while completely ignoring my argument and opinion. That is why I stated what I stated. You agree with him and therefore ignore my facts.

Originally posted by someguy

And to respond about the whole relationship with the two movies, I read back and found nothing explaining their correlation. All you said was that they're both mediocre films and the drama got a higher rating because it's not a horror film. That doesn't explain anything at all. That doesn't prove there is a bias. Explain to me how you think that it proves what you're saying. And don't give me the broken record about how it explains what you mean perfectly and that I'm just ignoring it because I disagree. That's bullshit, anyone can see that it doesn't make any sense in proving your argument. By using those two examples as proof of a bias, you're suggesting that critics intentionally gave The Black Dahlia a higher rating so it wouldn't receive an equal or lower RT average than Final Destination. And putting it that way exposes how ridiculous it sounds.

There is no way for someone to find a relationship between two completely different movies, I was merely putting out examples within what QUIGLES asked me to do. If he was automatically going to brush off the examples and proclaim that they have nothing to do with each other, he shouldn't have asked me to choose to films to begin with. The problem lies with what Quigles asked of me, not with how I answered his question.

Originally posted by someguy

I have proven your use of the facts to be wrong in justifying your points, I have not proven the facts to be wrong. The facts are there, and you STILL don't seem to understand the difference between spouting off facts and applying them. I am not ignoring your facts, I'm quite aware of them. I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just saying how your use of them doesn't support your opinions. I've repeated this so many times and yet you continue to say I'm just ignoring your points. I really don't get you, and if you truly believe that I am ignoring your points why don't you clarify them a little more for me? Or is not ignoring them admitting that they do support your opinion strongly?

No. You have not. You have proven that you disagree with my use of facts and nothing more. Nothing more, nothing less. I put up facts, I put up my analysis. If you disagree with that, fine by me, don't pretend I didn't analysis my own facts. I did. You just disagree.

I have clarified my facts and opinions a hundred times to you and you still ignore them. I keep clarifying them and all I get back is "NO U," or some stupid picture by someone with nothing further to contribute to the discussion. But fine. If you insist on me clarifying for you, allow me to:

This year: 30 movies broke the 90% mark.

Horror: 1 (The Host)

2006: 50 movies broke 90% mark.

Horror: 0

2005: 36 movies broke 90% mark.

Horror: 0

2004: 51 movies broke 90% mark.

Horror: 0

The best of the dramas, thrillers, and most other types of films tend to get within the 90-100% section, while the best of horror remains in the 70-89% section. One or two horror movies occasionally break this curse, but most don't. This is my fact.

Horror movies hardly ever get past the 90% mark, while other movies do. The reason for this is not that the quality of horror movies in general are lacking, because there clearly are quality horror films (as the review for 1408 and the reviews for The Descent show), so why are there hardly any horror films that reach this holy grail of ratings section?

Because there's a blatant biased against horror films that's still left in SOME critics minds. Not all, some. These are the critics who still proclaim horror films as some sort of "pornography," much like they did back in the day of Carpenter. These are the critics who look down upon horror films in general and see them as low-grade entertainment. These are the same people who in the 70's would have called The Texas Chainsaw Massacre a exploitation film or would have called Frankenstein a "dumb B-movie" had they been critiquing when those movies existed. This is my claim. This is me interpreting my facts.

LordSimen

09-09-2007, 08:30 PM

Well, then get ready for this, I am about to totally destroy your argument that critics like dramas more than horror when films are close in quality.
Okay. You've gone on and on and on about BLACK DELILAH and FINAL DESTINATION. Fine. I'll use the EXACT SAME LOGIC you did. Let's take URBAN LEGEND: FINAL CUT. It scores a 9%. Pretty bad, right? Now how about the romantic drama DOWN TO YOU? Oh, golly, it only scored 4%! The ONLY conclusion must be that when two bad movies are seperated by 5 percentage points, the lower one MUST be just because of the bias of the critics! So critics inflate their view of horror films and hate romantic dramas! OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!.

The problem with this argument is that Quigles ASKED me to use two examples of films. The problem is not with how I answered but with the question Quigles asked. If you have a problem with what he wanted me to try and proove, take it up with him. He's the one who asked the impossible question.

Please. That's exactly what you did in comparing TBD and FD. Doesn't work. You can't compare two movies (especially from different genres) totally equally. If you were going to try, you'd have to have at least 5 points be your swing, so that if two movies scored within five points, you should call them equal. Or, you could just be a reasonable person and not try to compare two films.**

Yes. However, I did it out of request. Once again, take that up with Quigles. He asked me for that example.

Look, Simien, even if your points were totally solid, your argument sure isn't. I really can't believe you don't see that. I'm not saying every argument against you is totally sound, but that's not relevant to what YOU are saying. And tha logic doesn't work.

My logic is perfectly fine, my friend.

Finally, Simien, you are TOTALLY off on the torture porn thing. No logical person is calling Hostel a porno. The term torture porn means that the film seems to be made for PEOPLE WHO GET OFF ON WATCHING PEOPLE GET TORTURE. It has no connectiong to 'real' porn other than the fact that it is material that tickles someone's jollies. Your idea of what they mean when they say torture porn is just flat wrong. So there you go, take and learn.

Oh, yes, the infamous "let's insult the audience who watches the film rather than the film itself" argument. I'm sorry, but every person who uses Torture Porn has a different definition of why they use it. You may use it that way, but others in this thread have argued that it's because Hostel is secretly some sort of Soft-core porn. The people arguing against me would disagree with your analysis as well.

Torture Porn is a term created by anti-horror critics who despise horror films and want to not only degrade the films themselves but also the audience who watches them. It proclaims Horror as a form of pornography, much like the anti-Carpenter critics did back in the day, as well as saying that everyone who watches those films watches them to get off on them. That is not only offensive to watcher, but also the filmmaker who worked his ass off to make that film. YOU are wrong in YOUR definition.

**(and for the record, my whole point with the RottenTomato thing is that you can't quantify two different movies and use that scale to judge them. You just can't. So please don't come back at me with another comparasin, because you know that could go on forever. I think the argument is stupid no matter whose case you are trying to make).

TAKE THAT UP WITH QUIGLES. HE SPECIFICALLY SAID:
. Show some mediocre dramas that got better grades than equally mediocre horror movies.

That is asking me to take two films and compare their ratings. It's not my fault that both the quality of the films and whether or not you approve of their ratings is a completely subjective subject. He should not have asked the question if he didn't want my opinion.

someguy

09-09-2007, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
Yes. that is COMPLETELY brushing off my argument because he does interpret the facts as I interpreted them. I clearly explained how it makes it bias and he chose to ignore that because it didn't fit within his own thoughts.

I assume the does is just a typo for doesn't, but he did see how you're interpreting it. Anyone can, it's pretty simple to see your interpretation. Out of the films that got over 90% in the recent years, a very small amount were horror. Does that prove critics are biased towards horror movies? No, not exactly. This is mainly because you're putting all films on one universal scale and throwing a high standard in there. He didn't choose to ignore it, he understood what you were saying. He just told you that there's a difference between what you find deserving of 90% or higher and what the critics think qualifies for the same. I don't find it to be completely brushing it off. He just addressed it quickly.

Every film should be judged on it's own merits, true, but Dramas shouldn't be put on a higher scale than horror movies or visa versa. Doing that makes you become bias.

Judging a film on its merits does not equal to putting one genre ahead of another. I think that people just give higher praise to drama movies is because they're more satisfying than some horror movies and studios focus on the quality aspect of a drama whereas in horror it's more of an entertainment factor.

It's not that you agree, it's that you also treat his opinion as if it was some holy ghost or something while completely ignoring my argument and opinion. That is why I stated what I stated. You agree with him and therefore ignore my facts.

Please go back and point out where I said or acted like Quigles opinion was a holy ghost of some kind. Really, go look. I'm sorry that you can't grasp on to the thought that two people can just agree with each other, and that instead one of them must be seen as a Xerxes type figure and the other as a worshipper. Honestly, go back and look for where I've praised Quigles and his 'wonderful' opinions, and when you can't I kindly request that you stop your bullshit.

There is no way for someone to find a relationship between two completely different movies, I was merely putting out examples within what QUIGLES asked me to do. If he was automatically going to brush off the examples and proclaim that they have nothing to do with each other, he shouldn't have asked me to choose to films to begin with. The problem lies with what Quigles asked of me, not with how I answered his question.

Don't place the blame on Quigles, you could have easily explained to him that it was silly to pick two unrelated films and claim there's a bias because one has a higher rating over the other. Instead you actually posted an example and used it as proof of your argument. The problem isn't lying with Quigles, it's lying with you.

No. You have not. You have proven that you disagree with my use of facts and nothing more. Nothing more, nothing less. I put up facts, I put up my analysis. If you disagree with that, fine by me, don't pretend I didn't analysis my own facts. I did. You just disagree.

Analysis of facts does not go into the opinion category for this case. You're either analyzing them correctly or incorrectly. I never pretended that you didn't analyze your facts either, I directly responded to them and explained how they do not support your opinion. I have no idea why you can't see this. I've repeatedly acknowledged that I saw your analysis, but for some bizarre reason you choose to ignore those parts of my posts.

I have clarified my facts and opinions a hundred times to you and you still ignore them. I keep clarifying them and all I get back is "NO U," or some stupid picture by someone with nothing further to contribute to the discussion. But fine. If you insist on me clarifying for you, allow me to:

I get the exact same thing from you though (except the pictures of course). You keep 'clarifying' them and I keep telling you that it does not back up your opinion and to either bring up a new point or explain some more on your original ones.

This year: 30 movies broke the 90% mark...

The best of the dramas, thrillers, and most other types of films tend to get within the 90-100% section, while the best of horror remains in the 70-89% section. One or two horror movies occasionally break this curse, but most don't. This is my fact.

Horror movies hardly ever get past the 90% mark, while other movies do. The reason for this is not that the quality of horror movies in general are lacking, because there clearly are quality horror films (as the review for 1408 and the reviews for The Descent show), so why are there hardly any horror films that reach this holy grail of ratings section?

Because there's a blatant biased against horror films that's still left in SOME critics minds. Not all, some. These are the critics who still proclaim horror films as some sort of "pornography," much like they did back in the day of Carpenter. These are the critics who look down upon horror films in general and see them as low-grade entertainment. These are the same people who in the 70's would have called The Texas Chainsaw Massacre a exploitation film or would have called Frankenstein a "dumb B-movie" had they been critiquing when those movies existed. This is my claim. This is me interpreting my facts.

Now, you said that I ignore these things but I did respond to them. Look right here

1) Horror movies don't get over 90%: What makes 90% the standard here? Why not 80% or 70%? Those are good ratings also, and you can't expect lots of films to be put on such a high standard. If you went down 10 or 20 percent, you'd see that lots of horror films are given quite good ratings by critics and not the opposite . If horror films were truly biased by critics, there would have to be a very limited number of positive consensus' but I'd say that the amount of evidence I put up above doesn't exactly prove that. The standard you put up is a very difficult one to get to and it's no wonder why you'll think that critics dislike horror films if that if the point you want to start at. I can easily go off and make an argument saying that recent comedies are biased against because they don't get 95% or above, or that dramas are biased in favour because they don't have many movies under 5%. Well, no duh I'm gonna think that they're biased because I'm immediately holding things at a ridiculous standard.

That is not ignoring what you said. I told you that it doesn't prove your thought that critics are biased towards horror films. What you proved was that not many recent horror films get a rating over 90% on RT. Because of your high standard and putting films on a universal scale, it doesn't work logically to back up your claim that critics are biased towards horror movies. Is this ignoring what you've said? I'm directly responding to it, so that obviously means I am aware.

FatSakHead

09-09-2007, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
The problem with this argument is that Quigles ASKED me to use two examples of films. The problem is not with how I answered but with the question Quigles asked. If you have a problem with what he wanted me to try and proove, take it up with him. He's the one who asked the impossible question.

Yes. However, I did it out of request. Once again, take that up with Quigles. He asked me for that example.[

WHAT THE FUCK DUDE!!! Please do me a favor and go over that part and read it, and tell me you can't see how ridiculous that statement you just made sounds. So because Quigles asked you to prove your point and you chose to answer by choosing two completely unrelated films that have a 5% difference as a lame fact to back up your argument, that it somehow becomes his fault that you weren't able to provide a competent argument to back up your statement? Are you just literally pulling shit out of your ass now in order to keep from losing this argument?

My logic is perfectly fine, my friend.

You know what, you're exactly right. Instead of asking you to back your "logic" up we should have never questioned it to begin with because by law of nature you're automatically right.

Oh, yes, the infamous "let's insult the audience who watches the film rather than the film itself" argument. I'm sorry, but every person who uses Torture Porn has a different definition of why they use it. You may use it that way, but others in this thread have argued that it's because Hostel is secretly some sort of Soft-core porn. The people arguing against me would disagree with your analysis as well./b]

Did you ever take into consideration that these people calling Hostel a soft-core porn film were just using hyperbole to express their distaste for it? Nobody here really truly believes that Hostel was a soft-core porno.

[b]Torture Porn is a term created by anti-horror critics who despise horror films and want to not only degrade the films themselves but also the audience who watches them. It proclaims Horror as a form of pornography, much like the anti-Carpenter critics did back in the day, as well as saying that everyone who watches those films watches them to get off on them. That is not only offensive to watcher, but also the filmmaker who worked his ass off to make that film. YOU are wrong in YOUR definition.

What proof or logic do you have to support that idea that people who use the term "torture porn" only use it because they hate all horror films in general? Have you read a single fucking thing me, Quiggles, or someguy have said? You do know that these same people that give bad reviews to "torture porn" films give glowing reviews to actual fucking horror flicks that rely on suspense and atmosphere rather than cheap boo scares and gross-out gore?

TAKE THAT UP WITH QUIGLES. HE SPECIFICALLY SAID:

That is asking me to take two films and compare their ratings. It's not my fault that both the quality of the films and whether or not you approve of their ratings is a completely subjective subject. He should not have asked the question if he didn't want my opinion.

No, actually, its your fault that you chose to answer his question by choosing two films that were completely unrelated, thus, not really providing a solid argument against his case.

LordSimen

09-09-2007, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by someguy
I assume the does is just a typo for doesn't, but he did see how you're interpreting it. Anyone can, it's pretty simple to see your interpretation.

You assumed correctly.

Originally posted by someguy
Out of the films that got over 90% in the recent years, a very small amount were horror. Does that prove critics are biased towards horror movies? No, not exactly.

Yes, it does. Because it shows that critics put Dramas up on a higher scale than Horror films rather than reviewing them both for their own merits.

Originally posted by someguy
This is mainly because you're putting all films on one universal scale and throwing a high standard in there.

I'm not putting all films on one universal scale. I'm saying that Critics put Dramas up on a higher scale than Horror films.

Originally posted by someguy
He didn't choose to ignore it, he understood what you were saying. He just told you that there's a difference between what you find deserving of 90% or higher and what the critics think qualifies for the same. I don't find it to be completely brushing it off. He just addressed it quickly.

He did ignore the facts and my analysis of the facts by instead of addressing it with a counter argument asking me to (subjectively) compare films I believe should get a 90% or higher rating to the movies that did. He brushed off my analysis with a "you are looking at this the wrong way" rather than telling me what the way to look at it is. He provided no counter argument to my facts.

Originally posted by someguy

Judging a film on its merits does not equal to putting one genre ahead of another. I think that people just give higher praise to drama movies is because they're more satisfying than some horror movies and studios focus on the quality aspect of a drama whereas in horror it's more of an entertainment factor.

No, but critics put the two genres on different scales, with one HIGHER than the other rather than both scales being equal in effort.

Originally posted by someguy
[B]Please go back and point out where I said or acted like Quigles opinion was a holy ghost of some kind. Really, go look. I'm sorry that you can't grasp on to the thought that two people can just agree with each other, and that instead one of them must be seen as a Xerxes type figure and the other as a worshipper. Honestly, go back and look for where I've praised Quigles and his 'wonderful' opinions, and when you can't I kindly request that you stop your bullshit.[B]

Very well, you said:

At least Quigles is not saying his opinion is right because it's his opinion, he's provided plenty of evidence to back up his points.

When completely ignoring the fact that QUIGLES ASKED ME FOR MY OPINION WHEN HE ASKED ME TO COMPARE 2 FILMS AS WELL AS COMPARE THE FILMS I THINK DESERVED HIGHER RATINGS. HE ASKED ME FOR MY GOD DAMN FUCKING OPINION.

You also said:

Quigles (along with me) see that you did indeed post facts, but they have no support towards your conclusion.

Basically because you agree with Quigles you concluded that my support does not support my conclusion, when it does, you just disagree with it.

Don't place the blame on Quigles, you could have easily explained to him that it was silly to pick two unrelated films and claim there's a bias because one has a higher rating over the other. Instead you actually posted an example and used it as proof of your argument. The problem isn't lying with Quigles, it's lying with you.

No, the problem is Quigles. He asked for my opinion and you called me arrogant for giving it based on what Quigles asked. If he did not want me to state my opinion he should have NEVER had asked it.

That is not ignoring what you said. I told you that it doesn't prove your thought that critics are biased towards horror films. What you proved was that not many recent horror films get a rating over 90% on RT. Because of your high standard and putting films on a universal scale, it doesn't work logically to back up your claim that critics are biased towards horror movies. Is this ignoring what you've said? I'm directly responding to it, so that obviously means I am aware.

Yes, my friend, it does logically work because YOU GUYS are arguing AGAINST my opinion. THat is YOUR mistake to argue against someone's opinion. You are the ones who called my opinion are crock of shit and then decided to try to force me to debate my opinion against you. I did not ask for this long ass debate about OPINIONS.

The fact is there is no true way whether or not to say someone is biased or not unless you are them, so all our facts are equal in that regard. Neither do nothing but explain our opinion. My analysis of the facts is not wrong just because you don't agree with it.

WHAT THE FUCK DUDE!!! Please do me a favor and go over that part and read it, and tell me you can't see how ridiculous that statement you just made sounds. So because Quigles asked you to prove your point and you chose to answer by choosing two completely unrelated films that have a 5% difference as a lame fact to back up your argument, that it somehow becomes his fault that you weren't able to provide a competent argument to back up your statement? Are you just literally pulling shit out of your ass now in order to keep from losing this argument?

Quigles asked me a question, I answered it. Take it up with him if the question itself was too absurd for you.

Did you ever take into consideration that these people calling Hostel a soft-core porn film were just using hyperbole to express their distaste for it? Nobody here really truly believes that Hostel was a soft-core porno.

People in here did argue that the movie was a soft-core porn, go back and read it. I don't believe they used it as a hyperbole and regardless, I still hate them with every fiber of my being for using it.

What proof or logic do you have to support that idea that people who use the term "torture porn" only use it because they hate all horror films in general? Have you read a single fucking thing me, Quiggles, or someguy have said? You do know that these same people that give bad reviews to "torture porn" films give glowing reviews to actual fucking horror flicks that rely on suspense and atmosphere rather than cheap boo scares and gross-out gore?

Because someone who likes horror movies (in my opinion) would never use that term. If someone claims to like a horror movie and still uses that term I don't consider them in any way shape or form to be telling the truth. The term is degrading to both horror films and horror fans.

No, actually, its your fault that you chose to answer his question by choosing two films that were completely unrelated, thus, not really providing a solid argument against his case.
I answered a question that was asked of me. If you have a problem with the question, take it up with the quesitoner.

Mr.HyDe807

09-09-2007, 11:40 PM

http://nxtbot.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/energizer-bunny.jpg

It keeps going and going and going......

:)

AceD

09-10-2007, 12:16 AM

"The problem with this argument is that Quigles ASKED me to use two examples of films. The problem is not with how I answered but with the question Quigles asked. If you have a problem with what he wanted me to try and proove, take it up with him. He's the one who asked the impossible question."

...but YOU are the one who answered it. Look, if it was a dumb question, explain (as you've done after the fact) WHY it's dumb and move on, and that would have been fine. The bigger problem is that you didn't just answer it and move on, you started to use that (the example of BLACK and FINAL D) again and again and again in your posts when you were not referring to the question directly, you were using it as argument -- if you thought it was a dumb and useless thing to bring up, why keep bringing it up? It's not your fault if someone asks you a dumb or impossible question. It most certainly is your fault and responsibility if you answer it.

You then go on to say:

"My logic is perfectly fine, my friend."

So your logic in using bad logic (the BLACK and FINAL D comparasin) is 'perfectly fine'? Maybe that's not dierectly what you are refering to here, but again you have brought that 30 vs 35% thing up again and again outside of Quigles question, so it does seem that it is part of your logic.

"Oh, yes, the infamous "let's insult the audience who watches the film rather than the film itself" argument. I'm sorry, but every person who uses Torture Porn has a different definition of why they use it. You may use it that way, but others in this thread have argued that it's because Hostel is secretly some sort of Soft-core porn. The people arguing against me would disagree with your analysis as well."

I don't think they would, I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying (and they can certainly speak for themselves here if they feel they need to). I think they agree with my definition of what 'torture porn' as a term is. I do happen to think that portions of HOSTEL is pretty close to soft core porn, tell me what exactly the difference is in those sex scenes and any of the ones that air late at night on Cinemax? That's secondary to the whole 'torture porn' thing, which I do think is a seperate issue, but yes, I'm sorry, I do feel it at least teetered close to there at a few points.

"Torture Porn is a term created by anti-horror critics who despise horror films and want to not only degrade the films themselves but also the audience who watches them."

Totally false and unsubstantiated. I'll give you just one example: Ali Catterall, who blogs over at Channel4.com, loves what he call torture porn and defines it as a "sub-genre of generally American horror has taken the jaded youth by storm, owing to its incredibly explicit deaths, often featuring naked or near-naked women in extreme degradation and peril." Now some fine it totally offensive, some find it funny, and a few even find it scary, but they define it the same way (if not in the exact same words). My point is that people who love horror use the term. It's a term, and English is a lousy language, so get over it if you don't like it. I'm not asking you to use it in a positive way, but just like anything else not everyone uses it as you do.

What I agree most (and dislike most about torture porn) is not the nudity (although I have some issues there) it's the 'extreme degredation and peril' that people so enjoy. Now of course you don't have to share my opinion, but I (and I know I'm not nearly the first to say this) just don't see any artistry or challenge or thought into a movie where we just watch someone get tortured, no suspense and no work by the filmmakers to generate legitimate emotion out of anything other than gore. Now, let me say that I actually agree with Eli Roth here, who has said that he's disturbed by website that feature videos of girls being tricked to have sex to get things like a license or a green card, and while he admits those videos are fake he finds it sad and gross that people 'get off' on that, and I agree. I think he is a little hypocritical in that he still chooses to exploit that audience with SOME of his stuff, but I still agree with his point. Joss Wheldon, whom horror people seems to like, has said that "the advent of torture-porn and the total dehumanizing not just of women (though they always come first) but of all human beings has made horror a largely unpalatable genre." So there are people even in the horror community who don't like it going that direction (the direction of torture for the sake of torture on young naked girls). But there are some who defend it, no less, in fact, that The New Yorker's David Edelstein, who says that "the “torture porn” label is damaging, unfair, and misguided. It attempts to trivialize certain movies by suggesting that their only purpose is to titillate - short-circuiting the brain to go straight to the pulse or groin. In fact, many of the visceral depictions of violence in these movies conveyed strong messages that no viewer could miss. Ironically, these messages, especially in the “Hostel” films, are typically anti-violence." I sortof agree with that, although I think MOST of the films who recieve the label deserve it and trying to reach the pulse and the groin and nothing else.

Underlying messages aside, most people go to HOSTEL to scream and laugh and see young naked girls. I don't think that every (or even very many) people are truly turned on by people getting tortured and killed, but I do find it a little disturbing when some do. Now I know you'll want to write me off and silly or conservative or small minded or whatever, and I don't care. Again, I'm NOT saying that you or anyone else who wants to watch stuff like that is a bad person. Of course not. I'm just saying that's not what I'd prefer to watch, and many would agree with me. Have you ever thought that perhaps some critics watch CAPTIVITY or HOSTEL PART 2 at an 8am screening and are a little disgusted by it and then watch a human drama that features people that are clothed and not being tortured and they just like one more than the other (just like you might like one more than the other?) Can you see how there may just be more people who like a certain type of movie? Yes, they have biases, but no more than you or I do.

"That is not only offensive to watcher, but also the filmmaker who worked his ass off to make that film. YOU are wrong in YOUR definition."

As I've said and proved, I'm not wrong in my definition, I'm using the definition that many, many people who know and talk about films are using. I don't need to respond to it being offensive to someone, because as I stated above some like the term and don't shy away from it at all.

Sorry that this is real long. But there you go.

LordSimen

09-10-2007, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by AceD

...but YOU are the one who answered it. Look, if it was a dumb question, explain (as you've done after the fact) WHY it's dumb and move on, and that would have been fine. The bigger problem is that you didn't just answer it and move on, you started to use that (the example of BLACK and FINAL D) again and again and again in your posts when you were not referring to the question directly, you were using it as argument -- if you thought it was a dumb and useless thing to bring up, why keep bringing it up? It's not your fault if someone asks you a dumb or impossible question. It most certainly is your fault and responsibility if you answer it.

He asked me the question and I answered it. What's so hard to understand about that? The problem with the answer lies within the problem with the question. Take it up with the questioner, not the person who merely answered what was asked of him.

Originally posted by AceD

So your logic in using bad logic (the BLACK and FINAL D comparasin) is 'perfectly fine'? Maybe that's not dierectly what you are refering to here, but again you have brought that 30 vs 35% thing up again and again outside of Quigles question, so it does seem that it is part of your logic.

That wasn't what I was referring to. I brought that thing up again because Quigles himself brought it up constantly. He was the one who asked me for an example.

Originally posted by AceD

I don't think they would, I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying (and they can certainly speak for themselves here if they feel they need to). I think they agree with my definition of what 'torture porn' as a term is. I do happen to think that portions of HOSTEL is pretty close to soft core porn, tell me what exactly the difference is in those sex scenes and any of the ones that air late at night on Cinemax? That's secondary to the whole 'torture porn' thing, which I do think is a seperate issue, but yes, I'm sorry, I do feel it at least teetered close to there at a few points.

The Sex scenes in hostel were fictional and created through illusion. There was no actual sex taking place. No, they aren't seperate issues because there ARE people who use the definition of torture porn as directly relating to the word Porn. Whether or not you use it that way is irrelevant because there are people WHO DO.

You tell me what's the difference between the sex scenes in Hostel and any other movie with fictional sex scenes in it. Saying that Hostel's sex scenes equate to soft core porn is like saying any sex scene that shows nudity in it equates to softcore porn.

For example, from Quigles' post:
And for the record, it would be pretty easy to argue that HOSTEL was nothing more than a relatively high budget softcore porno with torture in it. Thus making the term "torture porn" apt.

Quigles, for example, used the "Soft-core porn" as a reason for the term Torture Porn being used. Obviously the issue is not secondary and is actually very much so in the first.

Totally false and unsubstantiated. I'll give you just one example: Ali Catterall, who blogs over at Channel4.com, loves what he call torture porn and defines it as a "sub-genre of generally American horror has taken the jaded youth by storm, owing to its incredibly explicit deaths, often featuring naked or near-naked women in extreme degradation and peril." Now some fine it totally offensive, some find it funny, and a few even find it scary, but they define it the same way (if not in the exact same words). My point is that people who love horror use the term. It's a term, and English is a lousy language, so get over it if you don't like it. I'm not asking you to use it in a positive way, but just like anything else not everyone uses it as you do.

I don't give a shit who actually accepts the term, those that do hold no credibility to me and I feel no respect for, for the most part. Some I do respect, such as Joss Whedon. It's offensive, it's degrading and it was created for the sole purpose of bringing down the genre. It was NOT created as a friendly definition, it was created in a negative light. Using that word is like using the word "chink" to describe an asian person, to me.

What I agree most (and dislike most about torture porn) is not the nudity (although I have some issues there) it's the 'extreme degredation and peril' that people so enjoy. Now of course you don't have to share my opinion, but I (and I know I'm not nearly the first to say this) just don't see any artistry or challenge or thought into a movie where we just watch someone get tortured, no suspense and no work by the filmmakers to generate legitimate emotion out of anything other than gore. Now, let me say that I actually agree with Eli Roth here, who has said that he's disturbed by website that feature videos of girls being tricked to have sex to get things like a license or a green card, and while he admits those videos are fake he finds it sad and gross that people 'get off' on that, and I agree. I think he is a little hypocritical in that he still chooses to exploit that audience with SOME of his stuff, but I still agree with his point. Joss Wheldon, whom horror people seems to like, has said that "the advent of torture-porn and the total dehumanizing not just of women (though they always come first) but of all human beings has made horror a largely unpalatable genre." So there are people even in the horror community who don't like it going that direction (the direction of torture for the sake of torture on young naked girls). But there are some who defend it, no less, in fact, that The New Yorker's David Edelstein, who says that "the “torture porn” label is damaging, unfair, and misguided. It attempts to trivialize certain movies by suggesting that their only purpose is to titillate - short-circuiting the brain to go straight to the pulse or groin. In fact, many of the visceral depictions of violence in these movies conveyed strong messages that no viewer could miss. Ironically, these messages, especially in the “Hostel” films, are typically anti-violence." I sortof agree with that, although I think MOST of the films who recieve the label deserve it and trying to reach the pulse and the groin and nothing else.

I agree completely with David Edelstein's take on it.

Underlying messages aside, most people go to HOSTEL to scream and laugh and see young naked girls. I don't think that every (or even very many) people are truly turned on by people getting tortured and killed, but I do find it a little disturbing when some do. Now I know you'll want to write me off and silly or conservative or small minded or whatever, and I don't care. Again, I'm NOT saying that you or anyone else who wants to watch stuff like that is a bad person. Of course not. I'm just saying that's not what I'd prefer to watch, and many would agree with me. Have you ever thought that perhaps some critics watch CAPTIVITY or HOSTEL PART 2 at an 8am screening and are a little disgusted by it and then watch a human drama that features people that are clothed and not being tortured and they just like one more than the other (just like you might like one more than the other?) Can you see how there may just be more people who like a certain type of movie? Yes, they have biases, but no more than you or I do.

I don't care whether or not you want to watch the movie. I also don't care whether or not you prefer that kind of film. I care when someone starts calling a film a name that not only attacks the film, but also the viewer of the film. That's when I care. Torture Porn does that in spades.

There are people who like a certain type of movie, I've acknowledged that in this thread before. My point is a critic shouldn't be biased one way or another towards a type of film and should review all films on a equal level and with their own merits. Too bad there are many who choose to degrade horror and give it unfair names such as "torture porn" rather than grade the movies fairly.

AceD

09-10-2007, 04:19 AM

"He asked me the question and I answered it. What's so hard to understand about that? The problem with the answer lies within the problem with the question. Take it up with the questioner, not the person who merely answered what was asked of him."

Okay, if we aren't understanding each other here we're not going to. My whole point is there is no obligation to answer dumb questions. By attempting to do so, you are equally as guilty as the asker.

"The Sex scenes in hostel were fictional and created through illusion. There was no actual sex taking place."

Well, the sex scenes on Skinemax are usually fake too, so that doesn't matter. There is clearly a difference in what the viewer is supposed to get out of the sex in HOSTEL as opposed to the sex in a movie with less attractive people having awkward or realistic sex, and in that sense I think the sex in HOSTEL and late nite soft skin flicks are trying to do the same thing to the viewer. Roth has even said as much, because he wants to present the fantastical elements before the punishment that comes. That's why I think it's soft porn.

"No, they aren't seperate issues because there ARE people who use the definition of torture porn as directly relating to the word Porn. Whether or not you use it that way is irrelevant because there are people WHO DO. "

Okay, but find me those people other than Quigles. The defintion that the industry accepts is mine, as I proved above (even Edelstein, who doesn't like it, defines it this way). I'm certainly willing to be disproven if need be.

"I don't give a shit who actually accepts the term, those that do hold no credibility to me and I feel no respect for, for the most part. Some I do respect, such as Joss Whedon. It's offensive, it's degrading and it was created for the sole purpose of bringing down the genre."

That's your opinon and you are welcome to it.

"It's offensive, it's degrading and it was created for the sole purpose of bringing down the genre. It was NOT created as a friendly definition, it was created in a negative light."

THAT is where you are wrong. Show me the person or persons who coined it and why. Then you can tell me why it was created, and with what intention.

"Using that word is like using the word "chink" to describe an asian person, to me."

Good grief, man, we are talking a movie versus a person, please don't act like it's an equal offense. No one who is not Asian uses that term without hatred involved. Plenty of people refer to torture porn as a fine little genre, just not their cup of tea.

"I care when someone starts calling a film a name that not only attacks the film, but also the viewer of the film. That's when I care. Torture Porn does that in spades."

The term can be USED to attack the viewer, it does not in and of itsel do so. It's just a term. I mean, you could call "How Stella Got Her Groove Back" or "Thelma and Louise" empowerment porn. Or "Con Air" and "Indiana Jones" action porn. Or "Capote" and "American Beauty" acting porn. Of course those are silly and ridiculous and would never be used, but for whatever reason torture porn sticks. Is 'torture films' really all that better? I think, in context, shouldn't be offensive. It is to you and since we here know we should be sensitive to that I suppose, but what if I'm offended by the word 'boobs'? Should I not visit Joblo anymore becaue the site can't stop using it? I could choose to do that, but I'd be missing out on good news and discussion. You could avoid everyone who uses the term, or you could just let it fly.

"My point is a critic shouldn't be biased one way or another towards a type of film and should review all films on a equal level and with their own merits. Too bad there are many who choose to degrade horror and give it unfair names such as "torture porn" rather than grade the movies fairly."

You say 'too many' critics do that. Show me a few, seriously (and I promise I won't blow off your answer. Please DON'T just show me a drama they liked and a horror they didn't, show me HOW they demonstrate their bias against horror. I'd be happy to continue to discuss if you'd like.

AceD

09-10-2007, 04:19 AM

Quigles

09-10-2007, 04:33 AM

You know, I said I was done with this debate, but I've just got to set the record straight on a few things.

Originally posted by LordSimen
He asked me the question and I answered it. What's so hard to understand about that? The problem with the answer lies within the problem with the question. Take it up with the questioner, not the person who merely answered what was asked of him.
Boy, I love how you completely ignored all of his points, instead opting to simply repeat exactly the same thing you said before many times over.

And the reason I even asked the question to begin with was because, AS I EXPLAINED BEFORE, people often need to figure out stuff for themselves (as opposed to having somebody else say it to them). So, I asked you that question because I hoped you would realize on your own that the genre of the films doesn't make a difference. Mediocre horror film or mediocre drama, both films are mediocre in the eyes of critics.

But no, you instead chose to ACTUALLY USE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE 5% DIFFERENCE SHOWED BIAS. You can't possibly put that back on me, since you were the one who chose two movies with nearly identical ratings, and then continued to use that example as evidence.

Besides, IT WAS YOU who said that a mediocre drama will get better reviews than a mediocre horror film.

Originally posted by LordSimen
A mediocre drama will get a better grade than a mediocre horror movie any day.
I simply asked for proof, hoping you would realize how nonsensical that comment is.

And just to prove YOU WERE THE ONE DEFENDING THE EXAMPLE, here's a quote from you.

Originally posted by LordSimen
Had the movies had been horror, they would have gotten much lower ratings than they recieved even if they were at the same level.

A five percent difference shows a difference, it's not laughable and shows prejudice. If you choose to ignore that, that's your problem, not mine.
See? You were so quick to defend that the 5% difference showed bias a second ago, and now you're just back-tracking. You've realized how inane that argument is, and are putting the blame on me DESPITE YOU BEING THE ONE WHO DEFENDED IT.

there ARE people who use the definition of torture porn as directly relating to the word Porn. Whether or not you use it that way is irrelevant because there are people WHO DO.
That doesn't make their usage of the word right.

For example, from Quigles' post:

Quigles, for example, used the "Soft-core porn" as a reason for the term Torture Porn being used. Obviously the issue is not secondary and is actually very much so in the first.
OH. MY. GOD.

I only used that in retaliation to your point that movies should only be classified as "torture porn" if they're a porno with torture in it. So I stated why, even within the confines you provided, HOSTEL could still be considered "torture porn".

But if you actually read through my many posts in this thread, I actually define what I BELIEVE to be the correct usage of the word "torture porn" many times over.

Here's proof:

Originally posted by Quigles
You make it sound like the phrase has been around forever, when it actuality the term "torture porn" was coined because of this awful recent trend to just show people being brutally murdered and senseless amounts gore, with no redeeming qualities in terms of story or character development.
As you can plainly see, I never once indicated "torture porn" was used in reference to sexual acts mixed with torture.

AceD

09-10-2007, 05:21 AM

"As you can plainly see, I never once indicated "torture porn" was used in reference to sexual acts mixed with torture."

Ding ding ding!!!!

Simien, as I've said, there is a general definition, and Quigles is not saying sex interspersed with flashes of violence = torture porn. I think the man would agree with the generally accepted definition that I listed above, and that Edelstein, and Ali Catterall, and most other people agree with and have stated.

LordSimen

09-10-2007, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by AceD

Okay, if we aren't understanding each other here we're not going to. My whole point is there is no obligation to answer dumb questions. By attempting to do so, you are equally as guilty as the asker.

I feel if someone asks me a question I'm going to answer it.

Originally posted by AceD

Well, the sex scenes on Skinemax are usually fake too, so that doesn't matter. There is clearly a difference in what the viewer is supposed to get out of the sex in HOSTEL as opposed to the sex in a movie with less attractive people having awkward or realistic sex, and in that sense I think the sex in HOSTEL and late nite soft skin flicks are trying to do the same thing to the viewer. Roth has even said as much, because he wants to present the fantastical elements before the punishment that comes. That's why I think it's soft porn.

And I don't think it's a soft core porn because I consider a porno to be a film which focus' on the sex rather than the story and Hostel focused on the story. I also consider a soft core porno to be a movie where people actually have sex on screen, which they do not in Hostel.

Originally posted by AceD

THAT is where you are wrong. Show me the person or persons who coined it and why. Then you can tell me why it was created, and with what intention.

I stand corrected on this front. Apparantly it was coined by David Edelstein who approved of the genre. However, that doesn't change the fact that term itself has been defiled over time by critics and used as a way to label horror itself as a subgenre of porno.

Good grief, man, we are talking a movie versus a person, please don't act like it's an equal offense. No one who is not Asian uses that term without hatred involved. Plenty of people refer to torture porn as a fine little genre, just not their cup of tea.

Because by calling it porno and implying that all the viewers who watch it watch it to get off on it, you are insulting ME rather than the film itself. You are saying that the I, or anyone else who enjoys a film like Hostel, is no different than a kid sitting at home masturbating to naked pictures of Paris Hilton. It's disgusting how you or anyone else would compare horror fans to people like that and I am deeply offended by it.

The term can be USED to attack the viewer, it does not in and of itsel do so. It's just a term. I mean, you could call "How Stella Got Her Groove Back" or "Thelma and Louise" empowerment porn. Or "Con Air" and "Indiana Jones" action porn. Or "Capote" and "American Beauty" acting porn

Yes. I've used that very argument myself as to why Torture Porn is a horrible title and unfair to use. To me, saying that, is just as crazy as calling Hostel Torture Porn. There's nothing pornographic about it in my mind.

Of course those are silly and ridiculous and would never be used, but for whatever reason torture porn sticks. Is 'torture films' really all that better? I think, in context, shouldn't be offensive. It is to you and since we here know we should be sensitive to that I suppose, but what if I'm offended by the word 'boobs'? Should I not visit Joblo anymore becaue the site can't stop using it? I could choose to do that, but I'd be missing out on good news and discussion. You could avoid everyone who uses the term, or you could just let it fly.

I will not let it fly because saying that it's the same as being offended by the word boobs is not a good analogy. Boobs does not attack the person you are saying it to. Torture Porn equates the person who watches the film to nothing more than a snot nose, masturbating teenager. That is completely and utterly offensive in every way possible.

You say 'too many' critics do that. Show me a few, seriously (and I promise I won't blow off your answer. Please DON'T just show me a drama they liked and a horror they didn't, show me HOW they demonstrate their bias against horror. I'd be happy to continue to discuss if you'd like.

I have searched and searched on Rotten tomatoes to see if I can find the kind of biased critics I have been talking about, and I seem to be having trouble finding them. It's strange how when I'm not looking for them it feels as if horror films are being attacked left and right and when I go to search for a specific example to prove my case I can't find none.

Very well then, for now I will conceed that critics arn't biased against all horror films, but rather, most do not share the kind of tastes to enjoy most horror films and thus this is why most horror films won't recieve such a higher rating.

LordSimen

09-10-2007, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by Quigles
You know, I said I was done with this debate, but I've just got to set the record straight on a few things.

Boy, I love how you completely ignored all of his points, instead opting to simply repeat exactly the same thing you said before many times over.

And the reason I even asked the question to begin with was because, AS I EXPLAINED BEFORE, people often need to figure out stuff for themselves (as opposed to having somebody else say it to them). So, I asked you that question because I hoped you would realize on your own that the genre of the films doesn't make a difference. Mediocre horror film or mediocre drama, both films are mediocre in the eyes of critics.

But no, you instead chose to ACTUALLY USE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE 5% DIFFERENCE SHOWED BIAS. You can't possibly put that back on me, since you were the one who chose two movies with nearly identical ratings, and then continued to use that example as evidence.

Besides, IT WAS YOU who said that a mediocre drama will get better reviews than a mediocre horror film.[B] ]

Yes, it was me who stated that and I believe it and agree with that statement whole heartedly. It is merely my opinion on the subject. Whether or not I can prove that opinion to you is irrelevant because in the end it's impossible to prove or disprove.

You asked me to prove it so I tried, and found that it was impossible to prove or disprove, and thus yes I am placing the blame on you for asking the impossible question in the first place.

Originally posted by Quigles
[B]
That doesn't make their usage of the word right.

You used it that way yourself. Whose backtracking now?

Originally posted by Quigles

OH. MY. GOD.

I only used that in retaliation to your point that movies should only be classified as "torture porn" if they're a porno with torture in it. So I stated why, even within the confines you provided, HOSTEL could still be considered "torture porn".

You must have changed your mind from when you posted that previous statement, because you clearly did state it as being a reason the term Torture Porn would apply to Hostel. Besides, even within the confines I provided, Hostel is not and never will be a porno.

Simien, as I've said, there is a general definition, and Quigles is not saying sex interspersed with flashes of violence = torture porn. I think the man would agree with the generally accepted definition that I listed above, and that Edelstein, and Ali Catterall, and most other people agree with and have stated.

My name is Simen, not Simien. The definition is not general and changes when it is used. The person who coined it uses it one way while the rest use it another way. You look on general messages boards and there are people who use it to explain that the movies are softcore porn mixed with horror, as Quigles tried to do foolishly earlier in this thread. There are others who use the definition you use. Either fucking way, it's a horrible term and should be abolished from the face of the earth.

Quigles

09-10-2007, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
You asked me to prove it so I tried, and found that it was impossible to prove or disprove, and thus yes I am placing the blame on you for asking the impossible question in the first place.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You say critics are biased against horror films.

I ask you to prove it.

You find out it's impossible to prove.

You blame me for asking you to prove it.

...

GENIUS.

You used it that way yourself. Whose backtracking now?
I used it that way BECAUSE YOU DID. I was making a point that, even within the context of your flawed terminology of what "torture porn" relates to, HOSTEL could still be considered applicable.

And who can forget your brilliant response... "Too bad it's not."

You must have changed your mind from when you posted that previous statement, because you clearly did state it as being a reason the term Torture Porn would apply to Hostel. Besides, even within the confines I provided, Hostel is not and never will be a porno.
You're not just a genius, you're psychic too!

Get out of my head!

GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!

Oh wait, no. I didn't change my mind. BECAUSE I STATED AT LEAST THREE TIMES PRIOR WHAT I ACTUALLY FELT THE TERM "TORTURE TERM" APPLIED TO, AND NOT ONCE DID I REFERENCE ANYTHING SEXUAL.

YOU WERE THE ONE THAT WAS SO FUCKING ADAMANT ABOUT IT BEING SEXUAL, NOT ME.

The definition is not general and changes when it is used. The person who coined it uses it one way while the rest use it another way.
You are delusional if you seriously think that people misusing a term suddenly makes their definition of the word accurate.

You look on general messages boards and there are people who use it to explain that the movies are softcore porn mixed with horror, as Quigles tried to do foolishly earlier in this thread.
I foolishly tried to do? I DID? REALLY NOW?

Yeah, I'm pretty damn fucking positive it was YOU who applied the sexual fascination to the term, not me. I simply made it clear that, even under your faulty logic, HOSTEL could still be called "torture porn".

Brando @$$ Fat

09-10-2007, 07:43 AM

Webster's dictionary defines pornography as....

Ah screw it. Instead of getting into the most literal of meanings, why can't we just go with what we know? Comparing a stupid movie about some idiot European backpackers who get their shit messed messed up to films where people fuck while some guys with camcorders and wah pedals do their thing is just.....not a worthwhile debate.

LordSimen

09-10-2007, 01:53 PM

Very well, everybody, I will admit that critics are not rightly biased against horror films nor do they outright hate horror films. This does not mean that I agree that they will give a great horror film it's dues because I know they share a different definition of "great" than me. However I will admit they don't hate the genre and arn't trying to bring it down.

I will also admit that I did backtrack a lot in this thread and I only entered in this debate because Quigles pissed me off when he called my opinion a "crock of shit." I can't stand when someone attacks my opinion and I took it personally, so I continued to try and take this debate as far as I could. This resulted in lots of backtracking and lots of "No U" like statements like I said earlier.

In the end I don't wish to debate my opinion on the word Torture Porn because whatever you guys say will not change my negative connotation I have for it since every time I've seen it used it's been in a negative light by some dumbass christian fundamentalist on IMDB or the like trying to attack the films. They always have a different definition everytime they use it and it becomes difficult to determine which is the real definition.

Quigles stated earlier "You are delusional if you seriously think that people misusing a term suddenly makes their definition of the word accurate," well that's like saying the people who put a negative connotation on the Swastika are dillusional because the Nazi's misused the symbol. Word's meanings are change by how they are used, that's the nature of language because language is every changing. However I will admit the original definition was NOT the definition I mentioned earlier. That doesn't change the fact the term is incredibly offensive, to me, and I hate it's existence as well as it's use.

I also will NOT change my opinion on what movies I think deserve better grades just because you people seem to think I'm not allowed to have that opinion. I will continue to believe that because the quality of a movie is completely subjective and just because you think the grade is enough does not mean I do and visa versa. And no, I will not change my mind that I believe the best horror movies will still get stuck with a 70-89% rating, because they will, but its not because critics hate horror movies as much as they don't view them as highly as they view dramas. Which I will never understand myself. This is not to say they are biased against them as much as to say they simply arn't their usual cup of tea.