Schlock Vs. Splatterpunk
 

I was just introduced to the term "Schlock" this weekend (after watching the fantastic Asian film Tokyo Gore Police), which got me wondering... What is the difference between Shock Schlock Cinema and Splatterpunk Cinema?

Of course, first I turned to good ol' Dictionary online...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...rl/schlock.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...l/splatter.jpg


So, does Schlock cinema imply low-budget as well? When I look at V's sub-genre list for Splatterpunk, we voted the following:

• Blood Feast
• Dead Alive
• Flesh for Frankenstein
• Hellraiser
• Return of the Living Dead
• Bad Taste
• Street Trash

Can any or all of these be considered "Schlock" too? What is the main difference between the two genres (if anything), and what are some key examples of both genres? We've started talking about Schlock in the Asian horror forum (click here for reference), but I'm wondering, on the whole, what are prime examples of these genres in terms of how they are identified in the horror and film community?

Splatpunk has certain nihilist ethics that are not essentially present in schlock horror. Splatpunk, like cyberpunk or biopunk is sort of more a genre philosophy than a genre. That definition is misleading. Gore Gore Girls is schlock. Natural Born Killers is splatterpunk.

I don't think Schlock could ever be made now, under any other genre title. It was one of a kind film making from a primitive era of cnema. The budgets were abysmally low, the talent nonexistant and the quality mostly absent. What schlock(or grade B-Z) did usually have was enthusiasm for the material. An "I'll get this thing made if I have to kill somebody to do it!" mentality. Sometimes you got a Jonathon Demme or Coppola rise from the pack. Sometimes you got Ed Wood. But you always got entertained, for good or bad. Trying to capture that era is almost impossible now. Even low budgets are huge by schlock standards(even by porn standards). Many of those films could be made on Blair Witch Project's budget alone. To compare say, direct-to-video(which is regarded as schlock now) to that era, you can see a distinct difference in acting style. B movie actors WANTED to become stars, and it showed. Dtv actors seem merely to show up and read the lines, as required. They don't even attempt to do a bad job. You also don't get those quirky moments now, that you used to get. The mike visible in scenes, messed up continuity(someone wearing a black shirt, then a red shirt in the same scene), ridiculous special effects or horrendous line deliveries. Remakes of those films are not nearly as good, because they tend to hold up the source material in too high esteem.

I don't think I'd consider most of what's on that list as schlock. It's just made too well. As for Splatterpunk Cinema, it will probably get it's own genre, but I doubt it would qualify completely as schlock.

I never liked the 'splatterpunk' designation.
dont like 'steampunk' either..


seems like a desperate attempt to create something that really doesnt need a name.

schlock is a broader description that just means the same as 'z movie'

incompetent filmmaking ... just a description of quality - not a subgenre

Schlock cinema - worst of the worst movies. Zero budget, almost-nil production values, shitty direction, exasperating acting and editing, etc. (You get the idea).

Occasionally, 1-2 of those find some sort of audiences and get some recognition. But that is putting it in a very broad perspective.

In a nutshell, they are movies which make shockingly bad cheesy cinema look awesome in comparison.

Now, splatterpunk is a totally different cup of tea. Its a true sub-genre in every sense, and also includes stylish and chic film-making production values too. Like Newb pointed out in his blurb, Flesh For Frankenstein is a true pioneer of all things splatterpunk - which was later elaborated on by the likes of Return of the Living Dead, Peter Jackson's earlier gorefests and Troma. There's some comic in it, some gimmicky. Overall, very cheesy, very entertaining (and) satisfying for the hardcore fans.

I hope this clears up a lot of doubts.

I always felt this way too.

It's the first time I come to know about the SCHLOCK genre!?! and sounds not so good. Perhaps it's another ruthless experimental celluloid products.

One word: TROG!

A great companion piece to Mommie Dearest. Unless you want a marathon of "A" grade schlock. Then I'd suggest Skullduggery(even Burt Reynolds is embarrassed by it, which says a lot), ZPG, Zardoz(Sean Connery in Pampers) and of course Schlock(John Landis' 1st film).

Oh, interesting. Thanks, guys!

The context that I heard of Schlock was that I went to a little theater in NYC (Pioneer Theater). It was showing Tokyo Gore Police, Feast II, Trailer Park of Terror, just to name a few. The name of the festival was "Schlocktober" (obviously clever naming, but it got me to thinking about the genre name itself).

So maybe Tokyo Gore Police would be better deemed as "Splatterpunk" and not Schlock?

And how about this - Would we consider Herschel Gordon Lewis to be Schlock? He worked with VERY little budget, untenured actors and minimal script, but put out film after film after film...