maybe i'm just stanning breh
Rosemary's baby is on my criterion wish list for the next sale
It'll be on my list next month though
Last edited:
So what exactly constitutes a Movie as "Horror?" Let's debate and define.
- Thread starter kp404
- Start date
Rosemary's baby is on my criterion wish list for the next sale
It'll be on my list next month though
I feel you, but I still consider Silence of the lambs a Thriller/Suspense/Mystery because the story at the center is an FBI case to be solved. Lecter and Buffalo Bill are based on real people, but its still a thriller for me because the story itself doesn't present a horror movie like tension to me...I know once the case is solved, a threat will be removed. But that's just me though.
So then that brings the question in: is a horror movie a horror movie when its based on fictional characters? Do real life characters turn it into a thriller because we know the outcome?
NobodyReally
Superstar
Hmm. Is Amityville based on a real case? Cause that's definitely a horror.
That one's a funny one because the issue of whether its true or not are always debatable
No, its been debunked that it is based on a real case and that lie was used to sell tickets only.
Yeah in the middle of what I was going to say I had to deal with a squabble with my girl so I lost my train of thought and just typed some bs
lol man what were ya'll arguing about?
Something I said on Friday that she was still in her feelings about and I kid you not, I was midway in thought of recalling this story of it being debunked and how I went to college with a guy who lived down the street from the house in Amityville, LI and she threw that shyt at me. We haven't talked since Friday we get on the phone tonight and I get dragged into this...sqaushed it tho, it's done and over with. That's how they get you breh, when you least expect it over something you said 72 hours ago
man you ain't never told a lie...that's exactly how it happens every damn time
storyteller
Superstar
Didn't read everything, but I've messed around with theories in my head and it seems like defining the genre is a bit of an opinion exercise. Something I've tended to notice (touched on this in other threads about the genre and why it's kinda lost something imo), is that successful horror villains are unrelatable. Their motivations are either a mystery throughout the flick (which is how I get around films like Friday 13th and Scream being technically horror films where the characters have a logic to their murders) or are not logical (most fall into this category where they are just plain crazy). That lack of access or understanding is what makes a horror antagonist work, they are not like us...it's us vs them.
Thrillers on the other hand, tend to have characters who have a reason to their madness. It might be a bad reason, something we find morally wrong, but there's logic involved that we can decipher.
Haven't fleshed it out because it's just something I kick around in my head...so feel free to pick it apart or bolster that ish.
Thrillers on the other hand, tend to have characters who have a reason to their madness. It might be a bad reason, something we find morally wrong, but there's logic involved that we can decipher.
Haven't fleshed it out because it's just something I kick around in my head...so feel free to pick it apart or bolster that ish.
I think that's true to a degree also but I think that's more of a character choice than something that defines a genre. The Nightmare on Elm St series is undoubtedly horror yet we understand Freddy's reasoning for wanting to get the children of the people who burned him alive. Not saying it's something I agree with but we understand his logic: revenge. It's a very primal human emotion and and its no mystery where he's coming from or why he's doing what he's doing. Even in You're Next when its revealed what's really going on, there is a logic to it that is morally reprehensible and indefensible but it still exists
storyteller
Superstar
2 separate things to discuss here:
1. Freddy's motivations for revenge are understandable, but his behavior before the burning is not explained. He was a textbook sociopath/psycho, complete with torturing animals in his youth and then the nastiness with the kids that led to his burning. So while we get his logic for revenge, he was a monster before that motivation and that has no real explanation besides "he's crazy."
2. You're Next falls into the "motivations are a mystery until the end" which I admit is a bit flimsy but it gives the theory flexibility. Essentially, these horror movies hide the motivations until the very end of the movie because the "scary" would lose traction if they gave you that answer from jump. So in Friday 13th, Scream and You're Next; you spend the movie not knowing the motivations behind the murders and it creates the desired detachment from the villains that we need to make a horror movie truly scary.
Side note: I think some of the sequels to classic horrors lose this and fall into a category that is more satire or spoof than horror (Freddy especially is less scary and more comedic in later iterations).
EarlyMaridia
All Star
I don't get the need to have strict definitions for horror, but whatever.
The fact that texas chainsaw (
)is even in that list automatically gets the 
treatment. For the sake of that argument, lets just say (and I'm parsing words) that I disagree with the notion that a film based on "true events" can't be horror. It's not a documentary. The reason why they're so effective at being horror movies, is due to reality affecting people (way more than most) and there are facts for people to connect with. It's the reason why people were scared to go in the water, scared to take showers, and scared to be at home by themselves, back in the day. A shark actually exists in the ocean. The Chainsaw shyt actually happened. The minute you add shyt like The Girl Next Door and The Snowtown Murders, and that train of thought gets derailed in a crazy fashion. Hell, half of the goat horror films were inspired by actual 
events and people and the movies end up being a lot more tame in comparison.
The Bergman film was paced, lit, and payed off like any other horror film (even with it's theater like aesthetic/feel). The only reason it might not seem like it, is due to the eyes one sees it with it today. It's old and came out in a different period of time, but it's still exploitative and still highlights the real violence against women that was later used as shock, a form of empowerment, and to disgust audiences.
At the end of the day, I think it just becomes an exercise in shouting opinions about what one feels to be horror. There is no "right" answer, especially when you have genre blends when the director actually did a perfect job of blending the themes together. Word to Terminator 1 being a slasher, with an unstoppable killing machine, whom only died due to pure circumstance... the same way Jason and co go out.
The fact that texas chainsaw (
)is even in that list automatically gets the treatment. For the sake of that argument, lets just say (and I'm parsing words) that I disagree with the notion that a film based on "true events" can't be horror. It's not a documentary. The reason why they're so effective at being horror movies, is due to reality affecting people (way more than most) and there are facts for people to connect with. It's the reason why people were scared to go in the water, scared to take showers, and scared to be at home by themselves, back in the day. A shark actually exists in the ocean. The Chainsaw shyt actually happened. The minute you add shyt like The Girl Next Door and The Snowtown Murders, and that train of thought gets derailed in a crazy fashion. Hell, half of the goat horror films were inspired by actual events and people and the movies end up being a lot more tame in comparison.The Bergman film was paced, lit, and payed off like any other horror film (even with it's theater like aesthetic/feel). The only reason it might not seem like it, is due to the eyes one sees it with it today. It's old and came out in a different period of time, but it's still exploitative and still highlights the real violence against women that was later used as shock, a form of empowerment, and to disgust audiences.
At the end of the day, I think it just becomes an exercise in shouting opinions about what one feels to be horror. There is no "right" answer, especially when you have genre blends when the director actually did a perfect job of blending the themes together. Word to Terminator 1 being a slasher, with an unstoppable killing machine, whom only died due to pure circumstance... the same way Jason and co go out.
Good points but I think even with thrillers, the initial issue isn't understandable. If we are saying Silence of the Lambs is a thriller or Se7en is a thriller, Buffalo Bill and John Doe are both clearly insane in one way or another. In most thrillers, the killer's reasoning or at least mental makeup, is always something that seems alien to me
