HDC Presents: 100 Years of Horror

[Sculpt]

Originally Posted by realdealblues

If it makes you feel any better I have every film in the Godzilla, King Kong, Rodan, Mothra and Gamera franchises.

I love them, but I didn't vote for them because I just don't really think of them as Horror. They may get grouped in, but to me they were always more Sci-Fi/Action/Adventure.

You got all of them? -- nice! You have a ton more than me.

Good to hear there's plenty of us that appreciate them! I certainly consider all of them in the Horror film category. A giant monster, usually backed by space aliens, trying to destroy cities and take over the Earth... that's a safe bet to call it a Horror movie, don't you think? Basically, if _V_ lists them, I consider voting for them, with very few exceptions.

There are some fine art Horror films in the 'Giant Monster' subgenre. Gojira/Godzilla film gets a nod, but it's an absurdity that none of the others get serious consideration. For those with an appreciation for art of film audio, color, lighting, mixed media, and creativity, personally I think Gojira Tai Hedorâ (Godzilla Vs the Smog Monster) is a truly great art film. As a creator of a weekly radio show, I say, the jazz & orchestral musical score and sound in the film is fantastic. Sorry to see so many excellent works get ignored by our group.

[hammerfan]

My list is in.

[_____V_____]

Originally Posted by Sculpt

I certainly consider all of them in the Horror film category. A giant monster, usually backed by space aliens, trying to destroy cities and take over the Earth... that's a safe bet to call it a Horror movie, don't you think?

Not exactly. There is a difference. To consider it a horror, there should be some moments which induce genuine horror in the viewers' minds.

Moments like this make me miss Doc Faustus so much. He had such a valid argument about why most of the giant monster films, specially the Japanese "versus" ones, weren't under the horror genre.

I am sure neverending can describe this demarcation better than me but, after the last discussion/debate/argument, he might not put his thoughts to words again.

-------------------------

Thanks to hammerfan for submitting her entry for the 2000s.

Entries stay open through the Independence Day weekend. Let's take a call after the festivities/holidays are over.

[Sculpt]

Originally Posted by _____V_____

Not exactly. There is a difference. To consider it a horror, there should be some moments which induce genuine horror in the viewers' minds.

Moments like this make me miss Doc Faustus so much. He had such a valid argument about why most of the giant monster films, specially the Japanese "versus" ones, weren't under the horror genre.

I am sure neverending can describe this demarcation better than me but, after the last discussion/debate/argument, he might not put his thoughts to words again.

-------------------------

Thanks to hammerfan for submitting her entry for the 2000s.

Entries stay open through the Independence Day weekend. Let's take a call after the festivities/holidays are over.

"To consider it a horror, there should be some moments which induce genuine horror in the viewers' minds." I completely agree with you. That's exactly why each giant monster movie must be considered individually. To lump them all together as meeting this standard, or not, would be totally asinine.

Imagine someone saying, "Gojira is Horror; and all the rest are not". Or "Any film with 'Vs' in the title, even though I haven't seen it, is a bad film". It's like saying, "Green grapes are good; but all other green fruit, 90% of which I've never tasted, are bad". I think psychologist would officially diagnose this as arrested development or a psychosis.

I'd estimate I've probably seen about 60-70% of the giant monster films. And although I wouldn't want to say any one of them doesn't meet that standard, I would say if an adult saw Godzilla Vs Megalon, it's so campy, and more or less for children, that I wouldn't doubt them if they said there was no genuine horror moment. But I wouldn't ask that film be added to the 1970s Horror list (mostly because it sucked). That is in contrast to Godzilla Vs the Smog Monster, which does have moments of genuine horror in it. If you haven't seen it, you can't know either way. It's simply a case by case determination.

[_____V_____]

At the risk of me being an "arrested development" and a "psychosis" case, I leave this topic open for debate. Seems like no debate/discussion can be done without interjecting any personal remarks into it.

If enough people are in favor, the Godzilla (and other giant monster) films will be on debate during Round 2 of deliberations.

[metternich1815]

Originally Posted by _____V_____

At the risk of me being an "arrested development" and a "psychosis" case, I leave this topic open for debate. Seems like no debate/discussion can be done without interjecting any personal remarks into it.

If enough people are in favor, the Godzilla (and other giant monster) films will be on debate during Round 2 of deliberations.

Personally, I cast a relatively wide net of what is a horror movie, so I would consider all those monster films mentioned horror.

[Giganticface]

I agree that a wide net is a good thing. My definition of horror is pretty broad, but also makes a distinction that, if applied strictly, would eliminate some of the movies in our Master Lists. It would also add some that are missing.

I also don't believe in categorizing a movie in a single genre (i.e.. "That's not horror, that's a thriller.") I believe that many of the best movies qualify as true entries in more than one genre. Alien, for instance is a sci-fi movie. It's also a horror movie. It could go on either shelf in the video store. I also consider horror to be a subset of thriller, so essentially all horror movies are also thrillers, but not all thrillers are horror.

Here's my definition of a horror movie:

A movie qualifies as horror if
a) a significant focus is given to characters in a situation where a deadly or harmful force -- be it a metaphysical force, such as a ghost or demon, a physical enemy, such as one or more creatures or humans, or the characters' own psychological state -- is threatening to harm or scare them, AND
b) that the intent of film is to scare, shock, disturb, disgust, or cause discomfort to the viewer.

I haven't seen any of these old giant monster movies, but by my definition, if the movie is about the people under attack, and the movie is intended to make the viewer feel fear for those people, it qualifies as horror. Even though they probably also qualify as other genres, such as sci-fi, action, adventure and thriller.

By my definition, a movie like Se7en, for instance, does not qualify as horror. That movie satisfies part b) (disturb or disgust the viewer), but not a). No scene in the movie puts the characters in a situation where they fear for their well being. There is one chase scene, but that's really an action scene, and the main characters are the ones doing the chasing. The murder scene set-pieces are certainly disturbing, but at no point are the cops entering the scene at risk. The characters don't know that they are victims of the antagonist until the final reveal, and neither does the viewer.

As a side note -- off topic for this post -- I did rank Se7en in my 90s list for the "100 years of horror" because I consider the purpose of this project to not just rank horror movies, but point out the important points in the history of horror. Although I don't consider Se7en a horror movie, it made a significant contribution to the genre, being a huge influence with it's crisp, cold, stylized production, high level of gore, and aggressive industrial rock musical score. James Wan owes a lot to Fincher for the style of his Saw series. Its influence can be found all over the place, even in TV with the Hannibal series.

I understand that others won't have the same definition of horror that I do, or may strongly disagree with mine. That doesn't bother me. Entertainment and art are personal things, and everyone should be entitled to interpret and define it as they please. The lines are always grey and ripe for debate. I prefer to adhere to whatever definition the community uses, but I'll stick with my definition for my personal use.

[neverending]

I don't think a lot of the kaiju movies are meant to scare anyone- the protagonists are children and the action is cartoonish. They're children's movies. However, I think some can be considered horror movies, particularly Gojira and some of the other early productions. Also, the scale of violence can be considered- how much destruction is there? Destroy All Monsters would count, as would Godzilla Vs. the Smog Monster.

[Giganticface]

Originally Posted by neverending

I don't think a lot of the kaiju movies are meant to scare anyone- the protagonists are children and the action is cartoonish. They're children's movies. However, I think some can be considered horror movies, particularly Gojira and some of the other early productions. Also, the scale of violence can be considered- how much destruction is there? Destroy All Monsters would count, as would Godzilla Vs. the Smog Monster.

That makes sense. Although I think there is a such thing as children's horror, I like to treat children's movies as an entirely separate universe of film, where first and foremost, they are children's movies, and within that realm, they can be fantasy, action, adventure, horror, educational, etc.

[Sculpt]

Originally Posted by _____V_____

At the risk of me being an "arrested development" and a "psychosis" case, I leave this topic open for debate. Seems like no debate/discussion can be done without interjecting any personal remarks into it.

If enough people are in favor, the Godzilla (and other giant monster) films will be on debate during Round 2 of deliberations.

You're right, V, I should have left out the 'arrested development and psychosis' addition. I apologize if anyone felt insulted. However I'd like to make clear I made no personal attacks.

I think a discussion can be done without interjecting personal attacks. Speaking of my prior post, along with not using anyone's name, nobody on this forum has said the absurd things I wrote (that would have indicated arrested development or psychosis).

Nobody would say, "Gojira is horror, but all the rest of the giant monster, THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN, are not." and "All movies with the word "Vs" in it, even if I haven't seen them, are bad movies." Nobody would say these things because we all know it contradicts basic logic - logic being: you can't know what you can't know. Let me make it clear, I'm merely saying nobody can determine horror content and film quality on a film they haven't seen. Does any here profess to actually believe the statements I put in quotes?

I know Neverending wrote, "When crap like Leprechaun and Anything Vs. Anything makes it on to a best of anything list, I just want to gouge my eyes out and slit my wrists." At the time there was only one 'Vs' movie with votes on our 'best of' list, which was 'Jason Vs Freddy'. It's colorful language, not a thesis statement -- I'm certainly not going to assume he meant anything except Jason Vs Freddy, and likely that most "Vs" movies suck, which I completely agree with, out of my own experience (I haven't seen J Vs F).

I'd like to thank everyone of our members who have made it clear they respect others' opinions, and have been very courteous to each other. I think we have an excellent group here.