Freddy vs Jason

[paulvonscott]

You raving nutter, tell us that one about Lord of the Rings again :)

[SmallBlueThing]

What's the matter? Don't like your conservative, reactionary views questioned intelligently? (insert fucking smiley)

Steev
Pissed off today and spoiling for a fight. Grrrr.

[SmallBlueThing]

I am at a loss to see why I'm a "raving nutter" though. Because I can't stand the racist, middle-Englander subtext of LotR? Because I thought the movies were shit? Because I don't like sci fi movies? because I object to the American Cultural Imperialism of Star Trek? Because I think horror movies are far more interesting than just about any other type of film (except maybe westerns)? Because I don't equate big budgets with quality? Because I don't equate small budgets with trash? Because I use big words? Because I have opinions that I can back up and aren't formed from reading SFX or Dreamwatch? Because I work in mental health? Because I have to deal with people in a professional capacity, every day, who are sci fi fans?

Really, I'm interested.

Steev

[Richmond Clements]

*American TV voiceover artist voice*
'The role of Karne, as offical winder-upper, will tonight be played by paulvonscott'

[Leigh S]

"as the absolute epitome of disposable eighties horror, they are all classics"

"Horror is a ghetto genre, it alomst always has been the province of the low budget B-flik"

Similar Hymn books?

I think your arguments about how some horror films can have cultural significance and tackle the human condition is fine - cant disagree for a second there.

Aren't we discussing here more the sub genre of slasher movies? I can't personally think of many that fit the above description, but then again, I hate them with a vengeance that doesnt make me suited to comment.  

I like some (mainly older) Horror films, but to me Slasher films seem to be about nothing but dubious murder fantasies - maybe I'm missing the obvious subtexts there. Can you explain further why some of these films are poor, and some are classics?

Honestly, no-ones seriously attacking you, just a bit of banter, tis all Steev. Smileys (not you Smiley!)are there not to annoy, but to show no ill-offence intended - sorry you don't seem to like them, but theres no other way to debate these things without 'em IMO.

As for arguing against your well thought out post, to say the dumbest horror film is more intellectual than the best Sci-fi means you've either only ever seen terrible Sci-fi films, or are a raving nutter! :)

Isn't trying to say Sci-Fi is all about hope and light (and all rubbish) just fighting a small generalisation with bigger generalisation?

[Slippery PD]

The interesting thing about this thread is that its exactly the opposite of the LOTR thread.  Well by opposite, I mean that the viewpoints stay the same and teh positions are now reversed.

Id add something, but the Horror flick leaves me cold.  So Id rather not comment

Yer Slips

[SmallBlueThing]

Whoops- I didn't say that! I said *I* find even the dumbest horror movie *more interesting intellectually* than the "smartest" sci fi flick. The reason for this being, as I made clear, I am dubious about any 'meaning' a sci fi film could possibly have, simply because of the genre's lack of depth and reliance on surface gloss. (and no, I don't mean special effects, I mean the philosophies that Sci fi purports to have, but doesn't beyond the shallowest of lip-service.) I would never claim, for example, that 'Ghost Ship' (which I have just finished watching for the second time) is "smarter" than '2001'. Just as I wouldn't claim that any movie is "smarter" than any other. You'll notice I always (unless I forget) employ inverted commas when using that word. It's because I'm only using it under duress, trying to find a phrase I think will be understood.

For the record, I can't think of a single sci fi film that has had any affect on me whatsoever, with the exception of the Star Was saga. We've already gone into why those films are important to those of us of a certain age, so I won't go there again- but it's not because of the genre they belong to.

On the other hand, from the moment I saw An American Werewolf in 84, I've been addicted to the horror genre. I don't have time for other types of movies (with a few exceptions). I also don't feel the need to explain myself at all- of course everone hs the right to their own opinion. But nobody has the right to not have that opinion questioned, if another feels it to be wrong. That's the only way we change and grow.

As for the distinction between 'horror' and 'slasher'- one is merely a subset of the other, so no distiction needs to be made. Slasher movies are as disparate in themselves as any other type of film. And to say that they are nothing but 'dubious murder fantasies' is to be self-consciously moralistic in tone and somewhat twee. I would suggest reading 'Broken Mirrors, Broken Minds' by Maitland McDonagh- about the movies of Dario Argento for starters. Then perhaps watching "slashers" as wide-ranging as 'Blood & Black Lace', 'Opera', 'Halloween', the first 'Nightmare On Elm Street' and, oh bugger it, probably Hammer's 'Hands of the Ripper'- which is a slasher film, only a decade too early- and 'Peeping Tom'. Another fairly good overview of the subgenre is 'Stay Out of the Shower: The Slasher Film Phenomenon' by (mumblemumble- name escapes me and book is in the other room).

As for smileys. Yes, I hate them. The English language is vast enough for us to be able to construct prose that doesn't need icons to get  it's point across. I've never seen an author use a fucking smiley in a novel to convey an emotion. And the day I do is the day, I retreat, Patrick Troughton-like, to my monastary room, paper the walls in pages from 'Salem's Lot' and await the end of the world.

Re accusations of generalisations. Well, since the greatest defence those who follow the genre seem to have for sci fi NOT being just pulp kids' nonsense, is that it somehow, opens up universal truths by extrapolation on current events blah blah, or somesuch, I don't feel I have to defend my comments there!

I'm sorry if I come across as grumnpy about all this- but you have to understand I'm not a fan. I actively detest scifi when it's at its worst. It's just that, for me, no matter what I see, or read, the 'great stuff' that people rave about (Heinlen, Asimov, Clarke, that bloke who wrote Neuromancer, Moorcock etc) just reads like people with very dry, logical, infertile imaginations, trying to outdo one another in tedious escapades of supposed cleverness, which isn't really. It's illiterate garbage. But then, I read Proust, Beckett and Josipovici for pleasure, so maybe I'm a snob.

But if I am, what am I doing here defending the Friday The Thirteenth movies, eh?

Steev

[SmallBlueThing]

Please feel free, by the way, to add smileys into those last two paragraphs. Use your imagination- if you think "he can't possibly be that pretentious", then go with your gut feeling.

I'll go back to my battered copy of Endgame now.

Or will it be my novelisation of Halloween 2?

Steev

[Smiley]

Good SF provokes a sense of wonder while good horror produces a sense of foreboding. Drawing comparisons between the two is pointless when there are examples of both that fail to deliver.

[Leigh S]

My point has always been to argue the specific case for the thing your defending - the idea of whats "high brow" and "low brow" and sweeping statements about whole genres seems to have crept into this and pulled us away from discussing the specific merits of Freddy and Jason films.  After all the posts, I'm still not sure what the intellectual kick you get out of these films is, but I'm sure those books could tell me.  

[Leigh S]

..providing I could understand all the words....

[paulvonscott]

Eh?

Okay, I got your last point, so...

What do you like about all these horror franchises and what is your defense of the Friday the Thirteenth movies?  Though I'd rather here a defence of the Feddy Films 2+ (not counting New Nightmare, though feel free to defend the tonuge bit).

[JamieB]

*ignores long argument*

Apparently Bruce Campbell *may* be reprising his Ash role from the EVIL DEAD series for F vs J 2...

Oh, and anyone who *did* like the direction is advised to check out Ronny Yu's superlative early semi-arthouse kung-fu actioner, THE BRIDE WITH WHITE HAIR (but not the sequel, which is arsebiscuits*).

*Or WARRIORS OF VIRTUE, which is inane.

J-Bo-1

[paulvonscott]

"*ignores long argument*"

You have to, because nobody understands what it's about.

"Apparently Bruce Campbell *may* be reprising his Ash role from the EVIL DEAD series for F vs J 2..."

Oh dear, if so, what a fucking tragedy.  Teaming up one of the more entertaining series of movies (evil dead) with two extremely lame franchises (Freddy in particular).

If their had to be a gloriously dumb team up, The Phantasmic Evil Dead would be a better one ;)  Reggie and Bruce combined would gloriously have more ham than an EU stockpile (not that I'm sure those things still exist, but why let it spoil a lazy reference) and the Phantasm movies painfully need some money (Coscarelli's currently contemplating making one more before the planned finale because he can't afford to do that yet).

ALso they both seem to share in common, slight (to major) reality shifts between movies.

At the very least, tie two creative affairs than something good to the big mac of horror.

Anyway, let's hope that's a very big *MAY*

[Tex Hex]

My god! Youre that elite of highbrow - the brow so high its reached the end of the universe and bent bach round to be low again! Do you read Hannah Mcgills review in the Herald? Kindred spirits methinks.

Have we not all already had the "not say something is pish just because I dont like it" discussion? Fancy shutting up about lord of the rings for fuck sake? Im getting as bored as you seemed to have been watching it! I LIKE it. Youre NOT going to make me realise Im wrong.

As everyone knows the best horros movies ever made are Suspiria and Watcher in the Woods.