Talk:Horror film/Archive 1

Eras of Horror
I don't think the seperation of films into decades works to well in discussion of the Horror Film. I've seen a more accurate (IMO) breakdown of the eras of Horror done as such: Early Horror (1890-1920s) - Not much typifies this era beyond the first timid steps done by a few filmakers, mostly in Europe with such films as The Cabinet of Dr. Calligari. Gothic Horror (1930s-1940s), the era of Universal Horror films. Drive-in Era (1950s-1968) where horror was often mixed with Science Fiction, Appocalyptic Horror (1968-1996) beginning with Psycho and Night of the Living Dead, the Appocalyptic film typifies most of the genre themes played upon in Scream and other things such as inept authority, isolated heroes, "the Final Girl", a growing reliance on shock-horror/gore, etc. Unfortunately, this breakdown does not yet have a title for our current age of horror, so it's usefullness is debatable. --Majin Gojira
 * That makes a quicker overview. But it seems to me that, looking back on the past half-century, you can see some trends that were roughly unique to one decade or other. That's only rough, mind you, since admittedly not much is worth noting about some decades. IE, the 90s were a bit barren (though, in retrospect, you can find a few strands of interest -- ie, east-inspired occult horror stuff ala Ringu; various remakes, like Dawn of the Dead and Texas Chainsaw Massacre; and a turn towards dark fantasy). "Millenial horror", I agree, was just added for completeness's sake.
 * Anyway, if you make modifications that don't toss out the observations made on the page, I don't think people will mind that much. But I must highlight that I certainly think that a lot more happened in the 68-96 period than just apocalyptic films. The rise of awful slasher films is one noteworthy example. Lucidish 00:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Should we dump the naming of years/decades altogether in the headings, since there's so much overlap among decades and trends? Meaning, decades and trends don't line up terribly well all the time.  Then the main text would take care of setting the timeframe.  Maybe a bad idea, just a thought.  Michael Wells 22:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Evil Dead
I don't see an easy answer, but why is Evil Dead mentioned under the banner of the 1990's? Parts one and two both came out in the 80's and hardly seem representative of "90's horror" if we use the example of Scream. --Feitclub 14:56, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * i changed it. there is still some out-of-place films like "rosemarys baby" in the 70s and "silence of the lambs" in the 1960s, but couldnt find a nice way to rewrite them into the correct decade. Niz 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sympathetic monsters?
I don't know enough about the subject to meaningfully contribute, but should there be a mention of sympathetic monsters, like King Kong? And were there any significant horror films in the 1940s? (Even if no, it should be mentioned.) 68.81.231.127 00:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that Night of the Living Dead was refered to as a shocker. Was this in reference to it being shocking or a bad film? Very little history on the movie that changed the face of the genre. Shouldn't its impact be noted somewhere?
 * i added a bit more about it Niz 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

re: Sympathetic monsters
here is a list of some significant and popular horror movies of the 40's:

The Mummy's Hand '40, The Wolf Man '41, Cat People '42, Ghost of Frankenstein '42, The Mummy's Tomb '42, I Walked With A Zombie '43, Son Of Dracula '43, Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man '43, House Of Frankenstein '44, The Mummy's Curse '44, The Mummy's Ghost '44, Return Of The Vampire '44, Isle Of The Dead '45, The Body Snatcher '45, The Picture Of Dorian Gray '45, House Of Dracula '45, Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein '48

POV Issues
A lot of changes have been made to this article recently in the mistaken belief that horror films can only be about the supernatural. References to sci-fi films, The Fly, Frankenstein, The Silence of the Lambs and Alien have all been removed. I reinstated them because this is totally wrong, horror films don't have to be about the supernatural. I have also removed these intensely POV paragraphs written by someone pushing the case for the separation of "psycho films" from horror films:

"More ludicrously, it has sometimes been used to umbrella films which don't even go that far, but are simply made by people associated with horror film production, such as the Sherlock Holmes films of Universal Pictures Co. Inc.." "One result of the common appeal of these two genres with the same audience was the tendency of fans, and fans-turned-film-scholars, to not discriminate between true horror films and their feel-alike compatriots in the psycho genre, a problem which remains today in film study."

JW 15:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed the same thing and edited the intro accordingly. Thanks for spotting the things I missed. Lucidish 18:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think there are a lot of POV issues here even aside from the egregious examples above. The bit on Coppola's Dracula, for one example, is virtually content-free - it's just gushing, with vague adjectives like "brilliant."  It's easy to get carried away writing about movies you love - I've done it - but I think this sort of thing needs to get reduced on a lot of the film pages. Michael Wells 17:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hah. My fault on that. I couldn't think of anything else to write. I think it was partially out of shame for having overlooked such a momentous flick. Lucidish 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * actually it wasnt very momentous - it had virtually no influence, got bad reviews, disappointing boxoffice, is not remembere much today, and people thought at the time it would revive all the old universal monsters but it didnt! i left it in but removed the gushing stuff. Niz 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Edit it as you please. However, your assessments of critical reaction is totally off base. Rotten Tomatoes has Dracula at an 87% rating -- nothing to sneeze at. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bram_stokers_dracula/ Lucidish 22:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

David Friedman? Try H.G. Lewis
This is really strange: the films Blood Feast and Two Thousand Maniacs are described as David Friedman movies. David Friedman was a producer on these, whereas the director/writer (and auteur, if you want to call him that) was Herschell Gordon Lewis,who is a truly significant figure in horror history and the one who ought to be mentioned here. Furthermore, the David Friedman wikilinked is a libertarian economist, not a horror movie producer. Not that you couldn't be both, but apparently he isn't. I'm just going to change it. Weird... Michael Wells 17:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice start, but this page wants to be bigger!
Well, obviously I'm thinking of wading in and doing some revision on this page or I wouldn't be posting all these discussion comments. But I wanted to throw out some general thoughts and get a little feedback.

This page is a nice start with some thoughtful content, but I feel like it needs to be expanded quite a bit further. Where do people feel the appropriate balance is between succinctness and thoroughness? There are many more threads and major figures of horror history that deserve mention. And I think we need more mention of horror traditions from outside the Anglo-American ones - Mexican horror movies, for example. Japanese horror had a long and distinguished tradition before the Ringu era. Italian horror certainly merits a little more description - there isn't much point in mentioning a trend if we don't at least note in passing what it made it distinctive and important. (And on that note, why is Sergio Leone mentioned in regard to Italian horror, but Bava and Argento aren't? Did Leone even make any horror films?  This seems like a mistake.)  There certainly ought to be at least a few lines on the controversies of the last thirty years over horror film violence (particularly the "video nasties" debate in the UK), but I think others probably know more than I on that topic. In fact, how about more in general on the social contexts of horror in various eras? Blah blah, etc. Thoughts of fellow Wikipedians solicited and appreciated. Michael Wells 18:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The article limit is about 30K of text. If it gets past that, it's best to cannibalize the article into smaller ones.
 * You're right about this being Anglo-centered, I had noticed that last time. But being admittedly quite ignorant of the genre in other nations, and with other commitments, was not willing / able to do anything of it. Any insight I have is based of vague memories of Stephen King's Danse Macabre. Additions are always welcome, of course.
 * Social contexts can always be addressed in the main blurbs, i.e. for Invasion of the Body Snatchers and the Cold War. Lucidish 02:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * did a massive rewrite today, including lots of subgenres, important films etc. still not enough on international horror trends though (too american-centred). Niz 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This article seems to be particularly at risk from horror fan boys adding their favourite films and directors, and constant POV stuff that has to be removed. If it's in danger of getting too long I would suggest removing the notables section, or at least "notable films", as most of these will be mentioned in the article anyway if they really are notable. JW 10:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * exactly! i did remove all entries in the "notable people and films" section that were already mentioned in the main text but see discussion below - they've now come back! if i get agreement, i'll remove the already-mentioned ones again. Niz 10:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * IIRC, it looks like you added year-of-release citations for all the movies, too, something that I was going to say was badly needed. I'd also like to put out the idea of including nationality citations in those (relatively infrequent) cases where it isn't obvious from the context.  Ex: Suspiria (1975, Italy). We also BADLY need a references list, plus reference citations in the text.  Checking references will help cut down on spurious information and other fanboyish mistakes.  A lot of the folks who've worked on this page must have horror film reference books on the shelf; me, I'm kinda surprised, now that I look, at how few I have.  Unfortunately, it's become apparent that since the site software upgrade, I need to upgrade my operating system and web browser on my home computer (which I'd been meaning to do anyway) before I can edit pages properly.  I'm mostly typing these comments during breaks at work, so it's tough to put my money where my mouth is at the moment. [Insert sheepish shrug.]  I'd hope others could run with some of this stuff in the meantime. Michael Wells 22:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * yep i added the years. i think all the films mentioned in the main text (apart from Ringu, and maybe Hellraiser and Nosferatu and the Hammer Horror films) are american though. as for references, i have the "timeout film guide" from 1991, will that do? unfortunately i dont know how to do references correctly, i would need some examples to follow! Niz 00:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Re: nationality citations: I meant as a general rule, going forward, when hopefully we add more foreign stuff. There is a page about citations and references somewhere in the tutorial; I'd give you the link, which I have bookmarked at home, except that I'm at work.  Ask at Help/Contact Us and someone will point you there.  Time OUt Film guide is fine for basic details like cast and release dates and such, but we need more than that for deeper stuff on horror film specifically.  Michael Wells 15:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify further re. citations: one certainly doesn't need to cite sources in the text for stuff like release dates, etc., basic data that can be had from any number of sources. (Still, if you're using the TO Film Guide to check this and other stuff, it couldn't hurt to list it under a list of References at the end of the article - it would be a start.)  But for less commonplace information - and especially for analytical observations such as, for example, that '50s sci fi/horror films were reflective of Cold War anxieties - we need to cite sources and authorities.  This isn't supposed to be a page of our personal observations, but a compilation of authoritative information.  So we need authorities.  As the official shpiel at the Wikipedia tutorial says, authoritative sources vastly increase the credibility of a page for people who come here wanting information - and using them obviously can improve a page's professionalism and the strength of its facts and interpretations.  My endlessly useful copy of Phil Hardy's Encyclopedia of Horror Movies will certainly be cited on here once I get around to it. Michael Wells 17:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Nod; if the "noteables" section were to be jettisonned, I wouldn't cry over it. Lucidish 23:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Editing Notables etc
Niz: Can I ask what your reasoning was behind editing Notable actors, directors etc? It appeared to be totally arbitrary. I am re-adding some of the most important names you deleted.

Also, could you use the Preview button a bit more? I had to trawl back through pages and pages of history to trace all the changes you made, where if you'd just previewed instead of publishing, it would be a lot fairer on other users.

Cheers! David L Rattigan 0825 2005 JULY 21 GMT


 * I have now re-edited the notables sections. I selected those films, actors and directors that were important or influential within the genre. For those I wasn't familiar with, I followed the links and read the entries to gauge whether they were just someone's personal favourite or were truly "notable". David L Rattigan 0839 2005 JULY 21 GMT
 * i removed any people or films that were already mentioned in the main text, to avoid unnecessary duplication... so that section becomes "Other notable people and films". Niz 10:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I can see an argument for either way. I can see people coming to the horror film entry and jumping to the "Notables" lists in order to track down entries, in which case it would be good to include all the notable names and titles.  On the other hand, the Notables lists can become terribly long and unwieldy if they're not limited to people not noted in the main text.  Um, was that helpful? Michael Wells 19:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Geographical bias
Added tag coz I think more could be done to include non-Hollywood and non-Anglophone films. We should encourage anyone with knowledge of these to contribute. 213.202.148.158 18:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Misogyny? Huh?
"The horror film genre is often associated with low budgets, misogyny, and exploitation, but major studios and well-respected directors have made intermittent forays into the genre. Some horror films exhibit a substantial amount of coexistence with other genres, particularly science fiction and fantasy."

How is the horror film genre associated with misogyny? I mean, I know there are a few feminazis out there who think that the people who make these films, and the men who watch them, have some kind of sick fettish for seeing women get abused and battered, but they read misogyny into everything. These folks would accuse breakfast cereals of misogyny if they could figure out a way to do it.

I'll admit that horror films use exploitation -- glamorous blondes in the early years, tomboyish virgins with androgynous names in the 80's, etc., always coinciding with whatever the current perception of the "ideal" woman is in the minds of male movie-goers, but this is exactly why accusations of misogyny are so laughable. The fact is, a male viewer isn't going to give a darn if a male protagonist lives or dies. But the cute girl? He wants her to live. It's not just exploitation of women that occurs in horror movies, but exploitation of the male protective instinct that these idealized women provoke. Most men just don't want to see harm come to an attractive, plucky young girl.

It isn't as if it takes a Harvard professor to understand something this basic. How accusations of "misogyny" could sustain themselves in light of such an obvious (and much simpler) explanation probably has less to do with the merits of the accusations themselves than with the fact that many, many young women -- who eventually grow up to level such accusations -- are very obviously (and very outwardly, as much as they attempt to hide it) jealous of the fact that their boyfriends seem to actually care about the women on screen. Any casual on-looker can see that girls tend to get hostile when they see their boyfriends cheering on the female protagonist in a horror movie. And it's probably a lot easier for these girls/women to accuse men of nefarious, misogynistic motivations than it is for them to face their own insecurities, and own up to something so ridiculous as being jealous of fictional characters. Don't believe this happens? Look at the controversy in previous years over the Tomb Raider video grame franchise. --Corvun 20:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * the word 'misogyny' was added v. recently (by an anonymous author i think). the Final Girl concept is certainly a strong argument against misogyny in horror films. the other preconception, that the films are targetted at male audiences, is also pretty inaccurate, Ringu et al had a mainly young teenage girl audience. Niz 23:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt that the female audience is the backbone of the horror film industry. One could argue that men, being predisposed to violence, are less easily frightened than female viewers.  Not sure if that's the real reason, but in any event, it's the girls that the horror film-makers are trying to scare.  This is probably the double-usefulness of the female protagonist; the male wants to see her survive because the idea of virginal young girl getting sliced and diced is more disturbing to him than seeing a fellow male meet the same end (possibly due to the perception that men are "supposed" to fight and die, ideally to protect women), and, at the same time, the female can theoretically identify with said female protagonist.  That's probably the major reason why horror movies have largely kept their idealized female protagonists, while at the same time attempting to make them more relatable to the female audience.  Whether one of these comes at the cost of the other, and to what extent, is certainly debatable, though. --Corvun 00:42, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly think that the way the subject was shoehorned into that particular sentence was awkward, out of place, and tendentious, too, suggesting that the article necessarily agrees with the accusation of misogyny. I've drastically reworked the comment in the course of some extensive work I just did on the intro section in general.  I disagree with the assertion that accusations of misogyny in horror movies are solely the province of "a few feminazis."  There are plenty of serious critics and writers, including many horror enthusiasts, who see this as a major strain in horror, and it's been a big part of the prominent controversies over horror film content over the past few decades.  That being the case,I think it certainly ought to be mentioned somewhere, but in an NPOV fashion.  I think what I've done takes care of that for the moment, although someone could probably improve on it (maybe myself, later) and I can see an argument for its being included later on in the paragraph on the controveries of the '70s and '80s, during the slasher era.  Michael Wells 21:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll admit that "a few feminazis" was a trivialization, but I simply can't understand how movies about intelligent, prudent young women defying the agressions of super-powered monsters and/or super-cunning killers, un-armed and having to survive, by the skin of their teeth and on wits alone as they continue to overcome impossible odds, could possibly be construed as misogynistic. If anything, they're just they're just the opposite.


 * Some people look so hard for misogyny, they find it even where it doesn't exist. Does anyone consider Sylvester Stallone movies of being misandric, and accuse viewers of those movies of sadistic voyeurism?  No.  But when it's a woman fighting and getting beaten up and chased, it's all of the sudden sadistic.  The association of horror with misogyny is a purely sexist one; there is a much simpler alternative (jealousy, which I mentioned above) and it's something that any group of people watching horror movies late at night can witness for themselves.


 * I think the "Final Girl" concept is less indicative of a sadistic voyeurism on the part of men, than it is of female insecurity and ultra-political correctness affecting both men's and women's thinking (can anyone say Newspeak?).


 * I agree that accusations of misogyny do need to be mentioned somewhere on the page, but we should be careful not to make it seem like anything more than the ultra-feminist theory-of-the-month fringe trend piggy-backing on the bra-burning subculture that it is. --Corvun 23:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the misogyny accusations come not from looking at the one girl who survives, but the many, often semi-naked, girls who die horribly while the camera leers over their death throes. Many critics have pointed out that the male victims in slasher films tend to be dispatched quickly and suddenly, whereas the female ones are slowly tormented before dying. Obviously there are a lot of complications to the 'misogyny' theory (e.g. lots of women enjoy watching these films, the Final Girl kicks butt, etc.) but it certainly raises interesting questions about what we find entertaining and why. And there's certainly no need for red-faced frothing at the mouth about the very idea of raising such questions. That is where the Newspeak lies. :) The Singing Badger 20:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I still say that the many, often semi-naked girls who die horribly while the camera leers over their throes is a (perhaps subconscious) artifact of men being more horrified when an attractive young girl dies than when another guy gets whacked. Or perhaps it's a matter of killing off characters that the female audience is supposed to (but obviously doesn't) connect with, thereby horrifying them.  Maybe it's a little bit of both.  And I'll admit, there may well be a bit of misogyny in there -- not so much to satisfy misogynists, but to do what all horror is supposed to do, which is to horrify people.  That is the whole point of horror, isn't it? --Corvun 04:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. I didn't mean to sound frothy.  I just have a bad habit of being superfluously wordy and hysterically intense when it comes to description.  I'm actually a very strong supporter of both feminism and masculism, or at least those forms of which do not exclude one-another.

So what about all the men that in horrible ways in horrible ways in horror films? I don't recall Ash in the Evil Dead genting off particularly lightly. Or what about all the MALE soldiers in Day of the Dead? Or the Priest in Omen? Or Prince Prospero in The Masque of Red Death? Or Johnny Depp in Nightmare? Or Renfield in Dracula? Oh, and what about all the female monsters? Return of the Dead part 3,Bride of Frankenstein, Texas Chainsaw Massacer, Switchblade Romance all had these. Oh, and other than the army of "Final Girls", what about Ellen Ripley, Sidney Prescott in Scream 3 or Jamie Lee Curtis in H20? I'd rather take on Freddy Kreugar or 500 zombies than one of them! Anyway, as a guy, I'd like to say the women in horror movies are more likeable than the men.

A semantic revelation
It just occured to me that strictly speaking, there's no doubt as to whether or not horror films feature misogyny -- since young women dying in horrible, horrible ways is a staple of the genre -- but whether said misogyny is intended to horrify the audience (as is generally assumed to be the purpose), or whether it is intended to satisfy some kind of "sadistic voyeurism" in the male audience (as has been postulated by some feminists).

Of course, while I've been arguing that these movies do not contain "misogyny", I've merely been giving reasons why such misogyny would be considered horrifying, which upon reflection doesn't really need much explaining (hence I felt my reasons to be so obvious). I mean, what the heck is the point in speculating about why people would find the massacring of innocent young women horrifying?

Anyway, perhaps we need to point out that while the mistreatment of women is in fact a common feature in horror movies, and while it is generally assumed to exist for the purposes of horrifying audiences, some feminists have leveled accusations that it satisfies a hypothosized male need for sadistic voyeurism. (Though I find this suggestion abhorrently sexist, I suppose sexism against men is permissible, no matter how slanderous or offensive it is.)--Corvun 10:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Amen. I toyaly agree. I have a personal hatred of mysogyny and chauvenism in all form but I'm a big fan of horror. I freely admit that I revel in the on screen violence. Perhaps it is "sadistic voyeurism" but I'm totally indifferent to the gendre of the person.

Intro
Oh dear. Sorry, but I really don't like the new intro. Its too POV and a bit questionable factually. "The haughty intellectualism of the 19th and 20th centuries"? Who invented the horror genre in the first place, wasn't it those 19th century Victorians? JW 13:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * yep, got rid of that sentence, and removed some pov stuff in "millenial horror" section to.. Niz 15:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Section headers
I removed the names of these headers ('The 1950s: Cold War Paranoia' etc). They're cute but they're way too much one person's POV and simplify matters overmuch. The Singing Badger 02:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Pattern of Parody
Anybody want to mention the periods where the genre has been parodied and how that has affected the genre itself? Look at Grindhouse, Scream, and Scary Movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.54.8 (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Freddy and Jason: A new template
After looking at the two templates for the A Nightmare on Elm Street (series) and Friday the 13th (film series), I created a new template, Template:FreddyJason which I asked for a peer review. Please go over and take a look. I won't be putting this template into any articles unless I see some positive reception. So far the comments have been negative, and it is getting disheartening when suggestions and creations seem to be considered worthless.

This will be cross-posted to both series talk pages as well.

Lady Aleena | Talk 20:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea, but too much detail for a template, I think. --Myles Long/cDc 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * no need for this. at all. a combined template just because of one crossover film? no.


 * Okay, I get the picture. I will stay away from creating anything in the future as well since it seems that my ideas all seem to be disliked. I will try to get that template deleted. Lady Aleena | Talk 22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

New Section Suggestions
Please comment on these suggestions. The list is still being built for First Films which will hopefully be comprehensive.

First Films
Here is a short list of first films in the various series. Before adding them how many were missed? This new catagory would be a great addition for those who may be looking for a new series to watch which the user may not have heard of before.

There was a list of films here, however, to keep the page brief, they have been editted out by the author of the list. The first films can be found on the List of horror films by a special note next to the movie title in angle brackets.

Horrific Locals
How about a section on the locations where these films take place? Which state in the USA has the highest rate of horror in it? Could it be Maine where Stephen King bases almost all of his novels? It could also be Illinois since most of the Halloween movies, Children of the Corn III, Damien: Omen II, Candyman, and maybe others take place there

Comments
they need to greenlight the series and start making it again
 * the list of films belongs in List of horror films if its not already there.
 * Should a new heading be started on that page for this list, or should this idea be dropped? Lady Aleena | Talk 17:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * they should be added into the existing list with a note in brackets indicating they were the first in a series.
 * As you have suggested,  is placed by the films which begin series. There were more than on the list above, but I am sure that I did not get all of them. A few movies were found which were not on that list and were added.
 * the location info is trivial. not encyclopedic.
 * Wikipedia has articles on Tin-foil hats and Toilet roll holders. Trivial things sometimes mean the most. However, the section will not be created unless positive responses are made. Lady Aleena | Talk 17:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Location info could be interesting if you could find some referenced info on why some specific locations tend to be chosen more often etc. I mean it would be nice if it would not contain just statistics AdamSmithee 08:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * AdamSmithee - I gave this some serious thought and have come to the conclusion that the original responder was correct. Instead of just making up another list, films could be categorized by location. An example category would be Category:Films based in Maine and IT would be listed in that category. The categorires could be used as the lists instead of making a new list page. All list pages could be turned into categories. Category:1999 films could have the subcategories 1999 horror films, 1999 science fiction films, 1999 fantasy flims, etc. That would make it easier for people to find like films without having to search for a list. The list pages then can become redirects to the categories. This is just a thought for now. Lady Aleena | Talk 22:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that I misunderstood the proposal. I thought that you want to start a section (with text, not list) in the Horror film article. That section would explain why should anyone care about the location (if there is any reason). That seemed interesting based on the fact that this was a featured article candidate and it failed because it is all history and lists and not enough text on relevant aspects. However, what you want might also work, it's only that it is less interesting for me. I don't really know about categories instead of lists, but it seems that lists do have their advantages over categories: can be watched for changes, have a history of modifications and allow text comments next to the entries. AdamSmithee 07:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny thought just struck me, Jason Takes Hawaii. :) I don't know any horror films in Hawaii. Lady Aleena | Talk 10:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Submitted by
Lady Aleena 02:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Horror films subgenres

 * I would like to suggest that a section on horror film subgenres be added, explaining each subgenre and giving examples. Subgenres could include comments on slasher flicks, zombie movies, psychological horror, adaptations of horror fiction, Japanese New Horror, Italian gore, and so forth. - CNichols 18:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As a seperate comment, I like the idea about horror locations, but I don't think it belongs here in horror films. I've been thinking about creating article on Fictional haunted sites, covering both films and literature. Would that work? - CNichols 18:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A section on horror film subgenres would obviously be a great idea. I think that nobody really started it because nobody is sure what to put in. If you have an idea, maybe you could start the section AdamSmithee 23:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

most subgenres have their own articles, and most of them are already linked from this article. those articles should be expanded though. Zzzzz 23:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is that this was a featured article candidate. It failed mostly because it is almost only about horror history. So a section on subgenres would be welcome (of course giving some notion of each subgenre and linking to the main specific article for detailed info) AdamSmithee 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of horror subgenres, perhaps a list of them should be developed on the talk page first before adding them to the article. There may be some way of classifying subgenres, organizing them. Not all of them have articles, Yuppie horror, for instance. Шизомби 05:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Following the preceeding advice, here are my suggestions for subgenres to include: Any other suggestions? I can give examples of each genre if needed. - CNichols 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Expressionist horror
 * Universal horror classics
 * Hammer horror
 * Slasher films
 * Splatterpunk
 * Splattershtick
 * Horror comedy (or comedic horror)
 * Body horror
 * Psychological horror
 * Zombie movies
 * J-Horror (and the Japanese New Horror and Japanese Extreme Horror sub-subgenres)
 * B-movie horror
 * kaiju horror
 * horror fiction adaptations
 * Italian gore

Though your list of fifteen proposed subgenres is a start, CNichols, each cited subgenre has quite a bit of overlay with one or two other subgenres or with established articles. {See Zzzzzz's comment also.) With Expressionist horror for example, a discussion of expressionist style in horror films is pretty narrow. Expressionism was a movement in visual arts and literature (and some might argue in music) that informed film makers, predominantly of the early film industry in Germany and Denmark. There is already a pretty good article on Expressionism that touches on film, citing the four primary examples. I think it best to add the subgenre names as appropriate, and to tag them as cross-references to the established articles.

Excuse me for editing in material before referring to the Discussion (being fairly new to all this Wikiwork), but I added references to the sub-genres of horror-of-personality, horror-of-Armageddon, and horror-of-the-demonic films. (First edits in the 1960s and 1970s subtopics.) I also created the stubs for these three cross-references. Tgkohn 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You forgot Thai Horror and Sci-Fi Horror —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.247.10 (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Another category that should be included here and fleshed out is --


 * latin horror

Edwin Pagan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganimage (talk • contribs) 21:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

list of fictional killers
i was wondering if there is a list of fictional killers anywhere. i'd like to see one. i feel this page focuses more on "supernatural horror" ... ghosts, zombies, things like that. there are so many famous ficticious serial killers. i'd like to see their names in a list.

list of horror film killers

awesome! Rocketqueen 13:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fantasy-Horror
Could or should we have an article on this, or do the majority of horrors have an element of fantasy? Arniep 10:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comes to think of it Sci-fi horror might be worthy of an article too. Arniep 10:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fantasy-horror would bring more to mind stuff that crosses with traditional fantasy, e.g. witches and wizards, especially in a medieval setting. Supernatural horror usually deals more with the occult, e.g. bringing the dead back to life. It's a fine line, since many fantasies have horror elements (e.g. the werewolves in Harry Potter). The movie Army of Darkness is one example that springs to mind of a fantasy-horror hybrid. marbeh raglaim 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Blair Witch
"The Blair Witch Project attempted straight-ahead scares. But even then, the horror was accomplished in the ironic context of a mockumentary, or mock-documentary". i don't see what's ironic about this. and even if it's meant as some part of the meaningless literary sense of the word, that is nothing to do with the type of irony that was being discussed in the article (i would also argue that being self-aware doesn't constitute irony anyway, but that's a losing battle), so it's not much of an "even then". blair witch seemed to me like a fairly straight-forward movie with a clever gimmick. --dan 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
''Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.'' Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for GA Delisting
This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;


 * (b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors &mdash; see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 21:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for the notable actors list
Also mentioning (one or a few of the most notable) horror films they've been in could be useful. Like this maybe:

qwm 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And of course this idea works for directors and studios as well. :) qwm 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Honeymoon Killers
I just noticed that an indie movie from 1970, The Honeymoon Killers, is included in this category. I think that is a mistake. I just saw this movie on TCM, and it is definitely not in the genre. It is a true crime story that is surprisingly free of blood and gore. Any other thoughts on this? I will wait a while and if there is no objection I am going to remove it from the category. --Silverscreen 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Trying to ID
What was the name of the horror film, maybe from the 70s, where the old man and woman would capture people, plant them in a garden up to thier neck, cut their voiceboxes out, and feed them through a straw? It was veyr popular in the 80s on late night horror movie channels and developed a cult following. Any idea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.84 (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Motel Hell

Greatest Horror Movie
Think we could get a section on which movie is the greatest? I know the films that have been considered the greatest ever page lists a few, but since this is a page made just for horror films we could include more movies and more detail. I mean, lots of people I talk to think that The Exorcist or The Shining are the greatest horror movies ever. I think it would be good to say why. --Plasma Twa 2 06:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Though those are some of the most popular (I think) we can not just state "The Shining is the greatest horror movie ever" because that is an opinion. We could make a Notable Horror movies section but I dislike the idea because it could start edit wars or, worse, people could put down anything that they think is good. The worst result would be "This film should be on the list because it won the nowheresville best horror picture award" or people putting student films like Horrors of War up under the impression that because it has won awards it is good. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Catpeople.jpg
Image:Catpeople.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair use rationale for image updated. --Northmeister 16:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

fantasy or not fantasy
Is there any way to distinguish horror films that are fantasy such as 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' and films that involve an ordinary guy killing people like 'I Know What You Did Last Summer'? 218.215.130.26 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The 1990's
How does the section on the 1990's not mention The Silence of the Lambs film? It was the first and only horror film to win the Best Picture Oscar. I think it deserves mention in this article and in this section. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 05:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:200px-Nightmare01.jpg
Image:200px-Nightmare01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:200px-Hostel film.jpg
Image:200px-Hostel film.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a title to a horror/drama film that took place on an island within a lake or near the ocean in north america
The movie is about a young girl that was rapped when there was a party happening on her parents island or near an island. They had a boat house where in a part of the movie the offspriong of the rape hides and jumps out. The time when the party took place was what I can remember 1950's. After the rape was commited the island from what I remember becomes deserted and the young girl who gives birth to a male that is later to become the killer. I remember the girl dies and the killer son is running the island comitting murders. If anyone can tell me the name of this movie I would greatly appreciate it. It haunts my dreams and it is like I am living it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.52.201 (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the film called Humongous? It seems to have a plot similar to the one you described.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi CyberGhostface,
 * I checked the movie out on some sites and when I read that it had German Shepard dogs in it I screamed! It was the movie. My aunts took me to see this and this was it! Thank you for your help :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.196.244 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. :) --CyberGhostface (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Freddy and Jason: A new template Part 2
Over two years ago I made a template for the macroseries created by Freddy vs. Jason. I put it up for peer review and at the time it was too big. Back then there weren't collapsible templates, so yes, it was too big. Now that the collapse functionality is here, I added it. I would like to know what you all think of it before I put it into the main template space. So, here it is for your inspection. Please leave notes on its talk page. Thanks! - LA @ 07:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bateshower.jpg
The image Image:Bateshower.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Scream (1996 film) poster.jpg
 * Image:Fredkruegermoviefirst.png
 * Image:Exorcist-regan.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

New articles
We should create articles: LUCPOL (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Science fiction horror film (Category:Science fiction horror films)
 * Religious horror films (Category:Religious horror films)


 * You can always write them up in your user space, and then link us to them for a review prior to putting them in article space. - LA (T) 21:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User:LUCPOL/Science fiction horror film
 * User:LUCPOL/Religious horror film
 * I wrote to different users. If I wanted to create these articles, I make this already long ago. LUCPOL (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So you don't want to create those articles? Why are you posting this then? &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I proposed making these articles, only proposed . If I wanted alone to create, I would not write here. You understand? EOT. LUCPOL (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Overall Quality
I don't want to be confrontative, but much of this article seems rooted in popular views of the film (probably informed by relatively sloppy newspaper reviewers) instead of a more systematic and careful analysis. It would be valuable to include significant amounts of analysis (in summary) from academic and director-screenwriter sources. There is a lot out there already, as aestheticians have been discussing horror films since Nosferatu. Tgkohn 21:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this may not be an entirely global view of horror. While Torture porn, Japanese Horror, Korean Horror and slasher stuff are probably the most well known modern stuff, it seems to be overtalked of. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be confrontative either, but I will say the the article seems to be writtern by someone with a somewhat limited knowledge base for the topic at hand. Can't we get an article from a film professor? This article appears to me as though it were written by a college freshman planning to major in the hard sciences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandroidanimal (talk • contribs) 08:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Horror in music
http://zlotemysli.pl/?c=4main&idEbook=141 Horror and Art: Horror in Music/Musicology - e-book! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.235.170 (talk) 19:09, March 10, 2006 (UTC)

In Polish:
Mamy pytanie: Jeśli Wikipedia jest w istotnie "wolną encyklopedią", to dlaczego blokowane są istotne z punktu widzenie danego hasła informacje - w istocie swej - "wolne" (tzn. adresowane do wszystkich) ? Jeśli ukazała się pierwsza w Polsce (i chyba - tego nie wiem na pewno - na świecie) publikacja zwarta na temat horroru w muzyce, to dlaczego fakt ten nie ma być odnotowany jako "encyklopedyczny" właśnie? Nie rozumiem tego, sorry!!

Link do informacji "groza w muzyce": http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&q=%22grozy+w+muzyce%22&lr=lang_pl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.235.170 (talk) 10:16, March 11, 2006 (UTC)

Mention of Let the Right One In
I added a small bit on Let the Right One In earlier and it was reverted for being "uncited + opinion". However, I feel that this movie is worth mentioning at least somewhere in the 2008 section. At the moment, Let the Right One In has a 97% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with 77 positive reviews out of 79 total with a 7.9/10 average rating. To give an example of what the critics are saying, Colin Covert calls it "one of the essential horror films of the decade." Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Inquirer remarks "is up there with the bloodsucking classics." This film has won 13 awards and, to top it off, it currently holds 199 on the IMDb top 250. I believe this film is pretty significant, especially if Quarantine is to be mentioned, which just barely earned "positive reviews." It should also fit into the section about remakes as Cloverfield director Matt Reeves is tied to direct the remake. — Iggy Koopa (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to have some more non-US films in - and i don't think the best use of space is to list all the remakes currently planned. I think this film was removed because of lack of cites for notability (not that any of the others have them). If you re-add it, quickly mentioning the critical reception and awards (with cites), i would support its inclusion. With the US remake already planned, it would even flow with the preceding paragraph if written in the right way, or in a the paragrphh mentioning remakes of foreign classics like Ring. Sticking to a strict chronological timeline within the decade subsections looks amateurish, imo. A real encylopedia would discuss thematic groupings, not a timeline of "this was made, then this, then this".Yobmod (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The listing of new films with no discussion of importance is making me feel that this article needs a "recentism" tag, in addition to the "worldview" tag :-(.Yobmod (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sixth Sense is not horror
I deleted the Sixth Sense blurb because its a psychological thriller, not a horror no matter how much people delude themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.81.80 (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is. -- Gman 124 talk 03:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Link to the "Bibliography of Fantastic Film"
Dear users/participants of Wikipedia

I have recently added links at the Wikipedia horror film, science fiction film and fantasy film pages which refer to the "Bibliography of Fantastic Film", an international bibliography of the secondary literature on fantastic film focusing on horror, science fiction, fantasy and experimental film. The administrator User_talk:Ckatz has deleted these links several times arguing that Wikipedia is not a compilation of links, that a link to the "Bibliography of Fantastic film is advertisement/spam and violates the rules of Wikipedia, and that I am not allowed to promote a site which I'm involved in as an author. A strange argumentation: not the quality of a linked site matters, but the author/contributor. Finally Ckatz commended me to find another editor to set a link to my bibliography. That suits me fine because I think (as I told the administrator previously) that it should be the decision of the Wikipedia users and not of a single person wether a link to a free scholary bibliography on the topic of the related Wikipedia article is relevant or not. So, following the suggestion of Ckatz, I request You, the users of Wikipedia interested in fantastic film, to check out the "Bibliography of Fantastic Film" and decide by yourself wether it is relevant for a Wikipedia link or not. If yes, please feel free to ad a link to my Bibliography by your own. If You want to send me a message You can use the discussion page of my Wiki username User_talk:Athenaion or email directly to [mailto:Holger.Schnell@gmx.net Holger.Schnell@gmx.net]. I have copied this text to the discussion site of the horror, science fiction and fantasy articles of the English Wikipedia. You can also find it at my own Athenaion discussion site. Thanks for Your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athenaion (talk • contribs) 10:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

1920
Year of the Devil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.197.201 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite desperately needed
This is a horrible article, full of commercials and fan-like accolades; highly opinionated, it lacks objectivity and should be rewritten completely or deleted altogether. Also, the present tense, not the past, should be used in writing of even "old" movies, as they remain artistic artifacts which can, and are, written and spoken of (and filmed) in the present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.14 (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to take some of it on. I think a restructure would help with clarity. I'll give it some consideration. I just finished a project on the horror genre and I feel like I got a good overview.Sugarcoma (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've long used Wikipedia as a resource, and feel I can contribute to certain subjects, so I'm creating a draft for a new version of this page. I have several scholarly and popular source materials that can be used as direct citations.  However, being new to the editing side of things, I'm wondering if it is appropriate to re-organize and re-write an entry top to bottom without prior input from other editors.  I know that aggressive (bold?) editing is encouraged among users, but it seems to me prior consensus would be useful before an overhaul is actually posted.  Any suggestions?  Also, after researching "fair use" criteria as it applies to Wikipedia, I'm still utterly confused as to what defines a "free" or "fair-use" image. Radio London (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed this is horrible. How could you not mention Silence of the Lambs in the 90s? Or Misery? Both films won academy awards for cripes sakes!155.95.80.253 (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you guys have been working on it, but this article is still in need of work. Way too much POV, personal opinion and interpretation is injected into a majority of the article.Kiwisoup (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This article completely skips the 1980's. It goes from 1979 to 1990. The '80's were arguably the peak of horror movie popularity, at the very least in terms of box office figures. As stated above "This is a horrible article" Tetsuo669 (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Who in the heck wrote this?!
It mostly consists of untrue facts (like inserting that they disgust their audiences, because some of them "tend" to, but it's not a referenced fact). The opening is too long, and says something about dealing with your nightmares? It's not professional at all. I really wish bad writers didn't have Wikipedia. I'm probably a hypocrite though, because we're not perfect. I'd love to have time to write this article, research sources, and fix everything. I could help a little, but we need additional help. So please, please, please improve this article. Let's make it a feature article again. :) Nitefirre (talk) 1:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

--Athenaion (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and i happen to love horror movies and this thing is giving people the WRONG IDEAS! Horror mpvies aren't about "dealing with nightmares" and (if you don't have a weak stomach) they don't grose a lot of people out that much. Supernova444 (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Supernova444

No reference to 80s movies
In the 1970's-1980's section there is no reference to any 80s movies apart from Friday the 13th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.98.35 (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Chuckydoll.jpg
The image File:Chuckydoll.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

History of the term 'horror film'
This article would be improved if someone can demonstrate when the term was first used and then popularised. Many of the films listed in this genre would have been considered 'suspense' films when first released. I don't recall the term 'horror film' being used until about the 1980s. Interesting fact: the first time I tried to look up 'suspense film' here on Wiki, I was re-directed to 'horror film' and the second time, I was re-directed to 'thriller film.' Make up your mind, why don't you? Grandma Roses (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion, I have added a statement to the beginning of the article to this effect. The term actually dates back to the early 1930s and has since been applied in retrospect to some earlier films.  Sp4cetiger (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sub-genres
This miscellany section often duplicates information already included, and links to lists of films rather than developed articles. I would suggest the links are incorporated into the article where they are not already present, and this section deleted. Philip Cross (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The list also lacks citations as to valiity of the terms, as well as the legitimacy of placing individual films under them. Philip Cross (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No one has responded in favour of retaining the sub-genre section, or objected to its potential removal in the more than a year that has elapsed since I began this section. I have now added to the spin-off articles those titles which were absent, incorporated sub-genre links into the body of the article where necessary and expanded the 'see also' section to reduce the chance that any reader will miss articles which interest them. In the case of 'action horror' there is no Wikipedia article on the topic, and negligible RS to suggest that this is a notable sub-genre. Philip Cross (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

2000's
Under the 2000' section the Rob Zombie film from 2007 is cited as inspiration for series of remakes and re-imaginings yet the list that follows contains films from 2003, and 2005, all before the Rob Zombie film from 2007 so citing that film as an inspiration for films that were made before it is kind of well wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.21.204 (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've fixed that. Sean199813 (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WorldCat Genres
Maximilianklein (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Influences subheading
This section is not very clearly written. It would be helpful if this section was cleaned up, because as it stands it makes little sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.87.110 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Cabaret (movie)
Does the movie Cabaret count as a horror film? Even if the 'horror' does not involve such unearthly creatures as demons, werewolves, ghosts, zombies, vampires, etc., the horror is clearly Nazis, flesh-and-blood creatures who can give any unearthly creature some strong competition. Nazis, I must regret, are not mythical creatures.

Some of the elements of a horror flick include:

Freakish characters -- just think of the emcee. He has to be creepy to make this film work.

Bad things happening to good people. In fact, bad things seem to happen only to good people. The only likable characters are the Jews -- and although it could not be known to Germans in 1930 or so, the portents of what would happen to them were shown. Just think of the scene in which the emcee appears with a chimp as a "girlfriend".

Dark humor -- really-dark humor.

Even what seems superficially wholesome (the "Tomorrow Belongs to Me") has horrible overtones.

I find it the perfect Halloween flick.

So what if it is good in other categories? Pbrower2a (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Large parts of article poorly written
Large sections of this article need desperate re-writes and citations. Just thought I should bring this obersvation to the table because no one else seems to have. Alialiac (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

So you felt you had to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.218.106 (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not into really into horror, but this article may qualify as an entry. I'm working on copy-editing and compressing the text, and removing irrelevant or else-located information. Directors and stars are important, but anyone who wants that info can go to the film's actual WP page. I'll also be taking many unsourced lists of films out; there is an entire publishing industry alive because everyone has a favourite film. Unless there's evidence and a source to backup a specific inclusion, I'll be leaving only a few names in (and most likely at random). This is a genre page, not a "list of films by..." page. If there is a specific inclusion warranted through a good source, feel free to replace another or add it along with its contribution and the citation. I'll likely eliminate the explanations in the subgenres section (they already have pages, go there to learn about them), and shuffle a few "see also"s into that section. Rhowryn (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This article should not remain up in its current form. Speaking as a retired journalist who worked exclusively for genre periodicals, I can see that large swaths of this article are based on opinion, whims and flawed conventional wisdom. For instance, You're Next and Cabin in the Woods, whatever their merits, have not had any appreciable effect on the number of "slasher" movies released in their wake. The article is laughable to genre die-hards and thoroughly misleading to anyone curious about horror films. I know my response to myself would be "Then fix it, know-it-all," but I am in no condition to do such, as my health is failing rapidly. Spirit is willing, but the flesh is confining me to a bedridden retirement. Please, someone fix this, with less opinion and proper citations! Do a dying old man a favor...73.197.42.62 (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Influences on society
I found and fixed the source in the article, and then read the source. The section made claims entirely unsupported by the EW source. I also found that the previous source also led to an expired library database session. It appears that the original author neglected to find links accessible to the majority of us. The EW source was appropriate for the remaining bit about the prevalence of women as the audience for horror, but the rest was nowhere to be found in the source.

I also rewrote the last section to be a bit less condescending. "Women relatable topics such as pregnancy and motherhood"? What is this, Pleasantville? Plenty of people relate to all sorts of things, and even if the sentence wasn't so demeaning, the larger audiences of women going to both newer and older (rescreened) films (as the EW article mentions), I'm going to suppose that those "themes" aren't what's drawing anybody in. Rhowryn (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You can also talk about some horror movie which is popular right now, you have spoken a lot about the horror movie that is popular in the past, but they may not so attractive because your audience may not be so interested in them. You can show more new good horror movie in this century. You can also talk about the influence that happened on the human. Here is a reference that may help. Perkins, Sharon. "The Influence of Scary Movies on Toddlers." Everyday Life. Everydaylife.globalpost.com, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5B13:B900:6C02:71FB:F3C4:DEAE (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

"The Human Centipede" Characterization
Under “Subgenres," "The Human Centipede" is listed as an example of a spatter film. But doesn't it fit the definiton of "body horror" more closely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.100.46.68 (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Revision
This article needs to be revised due to the grammar and lack of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.37.136.53 (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Scary Movie as the Genre name? Difference of terms
'''Most Millennials call this genre "scary movies," instead of saying "Horror movies," I could be wrong but that is how people often reply when asking if someone likes a horror movie they say "I love scary movies, I hate scary movies," so should we add difference of terms, section? Please go to my talk page to reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.89.236 (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horror film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415034237/http://www.filmbuffonline.com/Features/EdisonsFrankenstein1.htm to http://www.filmbuffonline.com/Features/EdisonsFrankenstein1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Transformers, Twilight, Tim Burton's films, Red Riding Hood are Horror films !
Twilight is a pure horror film (vampires)

Transformers too (giants robots)

and Tim Burton's films are inspired of old Horror films like Frankenstein, I do not understand their absence from this page !--77.207.75.83 (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * First time i've heard that Giant robots are horror. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * User was blocked for trying to insist that various films were horror. As I tried to explain he would need to show reliable sources, and even then just because a film has horror elements that does not necessarily make it a horror film, just as a horror film can have comedy elements without being a comedy film. Bumblebee_(film) is not a horror film Talk:Bumblebee_(film).

"The Last Broadcast" as inspiration for "The Blair Witch Project"
The article says: "The film The Last Broadcast (1998) served as inspiration for the highly successful The Blair Witch Project (1999), which popularized the found footage horror subgenre."

Is this true? This article begs to differ: https://www.indiewire.com/1999/08/editorial-blair-witch-v-last-broadcast-has-it-really-come-to-this-82145/

Also keep in mind that the first ideas for "The Blair Witch Project" go back to as early as 1993. Defaultuser23894 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Jack Pierce makeup Lon Chaney Jr. as the Mummy.jpg

The "Influences" Section's Problems
This section has multiple problems including bias and what appears to be original research. For example, it states, "The importance that horror films have gained in the public and producers’ eyes is one obvious effect on our society." This shows extreme bias without any citations backing it up. On top of that, it also does not explicitly state which society is being talked about in the first section. Simply changing the name of the section could solve this individual problem though. --TeeRenTee (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Several genres
I don't think it's optimal to put for instance American Psycho in the same genre as Alien. I think there's a difference between horrific stories and "real" horror film. Boeing720 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

List of elements
The list of elements in the lede section is not an exhaustive list, it is a list of prominent examples. To that end, we must ensure that it does not grow without bound and become unwieldy, as it had just now until I reduced it a bit. Elizium23 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

2020s section
An IP editor pointed me to this page. The heading structure is unbalanced, but the biggest flaw is the 2020s section, which is a bunch of generic wikilinks. Can somebody fix that, probably by renaming it "See also"? (I don't have time myself to even read the whole article and don't want to make any changes right now) User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 21:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, the IP editor in question is a banned user, "Jinnifer," who continues to flout their ban in order to post WP:Original Research, and edit-war incessantly to preserve and protect their nonconstructive edits. Jinnifer has also taken to badgering other editors in order to either lift page protection to allow them to continue posting their original research gobbledygook, or to convince or dupe other editors into posting aforementioned original research gobbledygook for them.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd seen the "deuteragonist" crap from other IPs, but did not know they were a banned user. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 22:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Definition of “horror film” in the lead
“A horror film is one that seeks to elicit fear in its audience for entertainment purposes“ isn’t quite the whole truth. I think it’d be better stated that the universal factor among horror movies is that they aim to evoke a negative reaction in its viewers. Horror movies such as Hostel, Saw or the vast majority of splatter movies don’t really try to evoke “fear” at all but rather simply disgust and revulsion. Same goes for the body horror genre. I think that’s what the lead did say a couple years back, and I thought it was more accurate. --FollowTheSigns (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Good points, FollowTheSigns. It's more than reasonable for the primary definition of a horror film to refer to 'fear', but you also rightly point out that a significant subset of horror films, especially in the 21st century, primarily seek to disgust or repel/repulse rather than frighten - aside from the horrors you mention, The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (itself referred to as a horror on its own page) is perhaps a prime example. I'd support an amendment to the opening sentence which says "A horror film is one that seeks to elicit fear or revulsion in its audience for entertainment purposes." Gregory 02:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Have changed "revulsion" in the first sentence to "disgust", to reflect the fact that "revulsion" redirects to the Wiki page "disgust", and the word "revulsion" is also used in the second sentence. Gregory 02:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregoryjames (talk • contribs)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LEVcapustudent. Peer reviewers: Nat brizzkey.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TeeRenTee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sabrinafinke.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Timeline
The "Timeline" section is an absolute disgrace. Just an incredibly long list (180,000 bytes) of various films, with some WP:OR musings and very little sourcing. I've just been WP:BOLD and massively slashed 2010s, 2000s and 1990s, and tried to add some citations that describe actual trends in horror cinema. I hope other editors don't mind and that this could kickstart further improvement to this. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like this whole article needs a re-write form the get-go. The sources are questionable, actually reading it is a nightmare. I'm tempted to try and pull information to start a new version, but it sounds like a monumental task. I'll get to it someday. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Agree seems like a colossal task. I've added the rewrite tag so others are aware. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the suggestion of Arcahaeoindris, i'm going to plan on doing some re-design on the article. One thing I've done in earlier attempts is try to have some emphasis on sections like in List of horror films of the 1950s. I have some books i've ordered from the holidays, specifically The Birth of the American Horror Film by Gary Don Rhodes which I think will help clear up some of the early history of the genre that really very loosely touched upon in most overviews. Other than a brief history, i'm curious what other sections would be good. There's a big danger of these kind of articles just becoming overblown with overt fan cruft and people wanting their favourite or obscure horror film mentioned, which does not really help readers digest an article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So I've been ovserving your edits I'm going to try and tackle some of the historical sections to clear them up a bit. Sound alright? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done a quick(?) re-do of the historical sections from pre-cinema to the 1950s. I'm going to take a break at it form now, but how do people feel about how this is organized? Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks so much for your work, your overhaul is such a massive improvement! It's a a third of the length it was when I flagged this. Structure looks fine to me. I think the main issue is still that the history section is too many examples and WP:TOOMUCH detail. Only particularly notable or influential films should be listed, like e.g. The Blair Witch Project. It would not be unreasonable to split it off into History of horror films at its current length, or in any case parts of it could for sure be made more concise. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried to do that, but I feel like when we say things such as "The film created a spawn of similarly _____-themed films like ____, _____ and ____" we kind of have to list them a bit because we need to show that it was a real thing, y'know? I felt it was actually pretty fun to list some nearly forgotten films mixed in with more commonly remembered one. Like, just because it's a trend, it didn't necessarily create "great" works, but it created what the genre's make-up is. I'm wondering what kind of sections would/should be required next following this split. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the article for science fiction film looks to be in good shape and can be used as a guide here. History of science fiction films has been forked off and summarised on the main article. That article also has a "Themes, imagery and visual elements" section that could be included for horror films. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on what we have in this article already, I think the "influences" section is a bit redundant and unencyclopedic. Any content worth keeping needs to be summarised or the section renamed. The Reception section, particularly about moral panics and censorship, can also definitely be expanded as this is a key issue specific to horror films. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was hesitant on the influences section, as the history of film article shows countless adaptations of Poe and shows that towards the end of the 19th century (and very early 20th century) there was a rise of material which would establish the horror film. I finally got my copy of "The Birth of the American Horror Film" and am slowly reading through it. I could probably expand it/re-write it to make it for better prose. I think it's good to have because you can see the turning point in when we're still adapting tons of classical literature (tons of Poe adaptations in early cinema all the way into the 1960s) and after when we just start adapting contemporary authors like Bloch and Stephen King. It's basically a way of saying "these stories dont' come from no where". you know? I'd be down to move it to it's own section and yes, the other sections need updated re-writes themselves.Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was actually referring to the other influences section further down and not the section on early influences in the History section. Your section on literary influences looks good and seems justified for the reasoning you have outlined. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh right on. I'd be fine to remove it and expand upon the other sections. There is a lot to cover on censorship and having it's own section would probably tidy up the history section a bit too. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Splitting horror film history to it's own article
I've made the proposal on the article to split the History of the horror film to its own article. I think this will help, because it's hard to talk about the history of the article without doing some history (bans on horror films, some mild definitions of genres, etc.) that could be moved into other sections of the article. (i.e: part of the 1970s history of natural horror film can be moved to it's own section, horror films halting production due to the UK pressure and the Video Nasty hysteria of the 1980s, etc.). I think this will immeasurably improve the article that is still very easily tripping over itself in repeating the same stuff over and over, and that's after my own edits! Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've created a proposal for what the current look of the horror film article could look like with a smaller and more concise version on my sandbox here. Thoughts ? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I support the split. Draft looks good, thanks for doing that. I will have a quick skim and make some edits in the sandbox page. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good . Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I like it too.★Trekker (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support everyone! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So as there seems to be nice push for supporting the move, I'm tempted to do it now. I know was doing a copy-edit on my Sandbox, but I feel like it could still be pruned or have some parts moved around within this section of the article. I'll give it a few bits of discussion, but I think we are good to move forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, please proceed. Sorry that I didn't make as many edits as I could have on the sandbox as got sidetracked with other articles. But go for it, can always edit further once the content is up on the page. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll move the article shortly. Thanks again for everyone's support. Wikipedia can be great sometimes! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And done. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So...after moving it, i've given it some thought and...do we really need the history repeated twice on the wiki? I feel like the opening paragraph of "In his book Caligari's Children..." would give enough of an intro and just have it link to the next page. So much of the history of the horror film is going to be "birth of subgenres", themes, and censorship ordeals that we want to cover in other sections anyways. Perhaps, we can have a bit more than that first paragraph, but going through the decades is just sort of us deciding what we feel is and isn't important, when it should be more properly balanced and spread out in the History of horror films section itself. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Great! What an improvement. Yes, I think that is a sensible idea. I would definitely suggest keeping a very broad overview of some of the key points and trends from the History article but the current structure is probably too long and doesn't need to be duplicated. The lead section also needs to be rewritten to summarise the new key points. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Have had a go at rewriting the lead. Much of the previous content was not supported in the body of text. Feel free to make further changes. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Current re-write of the lead seems fine for now. I think as we expand and find more solid strong information for the article, the lead will grow with it, and probably the need for seperate articles (List of horror film sub-genres?) Might need to be made. My suggestion for furture sections might be Regional horror films, where we can discuss more specific details of horror history from around the world. I know the current History of horror film article feels maybe a bit too Western with it's focus on British and American productions, but that seems to be the case as that's where the majority of horror films came from that pushed the trends of industry (outside some bits and pieces from Italy in the 60s and 70s and Germany in the 1920s, and of course the j-horror boom for the late 90s/early 2000s). As has made some really nice starts too articles like Thai horror, I think some sections  on this could help. I'm also tempted to create a Horror film fandom, or horror film audience subsection, as per my recent additions on trying to define the genre suggest, audiences interpretations of the horror film is has really suggested the definition of the genre as time has moved forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong agree with all of the above. An expansion on "audiences" could probably build on the existing part on "effects on audiences" which needs work. If you're happy to, go ahead and further cut down the history section, although obviously no rush as it is currently the strongest part of the article and know you have put in loads of work on it! Have gone and made a start on a "regional" section just using excerpts from other articles for now, although so far has just been on Asia. In the process have also finally done away with the aimless and superfluous "Influences" section. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome! It feels great to for once work with a wikipedia editor on an article where it's not just us reverting each other's edits :) I think i'll leave history as it is there for now, as we can probably pluck and pull some parts of it for other parts (audience, regional, etc.) Good work on the regional section, i'll try to expand on other parts of it soon. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hahah, strong agree on that one! Probably a first for me too lol. Ok great, this article is already in much better shape. I think a few of the cleanup tags at the top can probably be removed now (i.e. rewrite, citations? others?) Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I didn't add any of the tags other than the "re-write" (which we are doing now). "This article may contain indiscriminate, excessive, or irrelevant examples. (January 2017)" might still apply to sub-genres as it's a pretty list-y section. We can probably get rid of "original research" as everything within the article that needs work seems to be tagged and you and I have added sources. The essay part is...probably out of date. I feel like that was part of the various school projects that have edited this article in the past. Maybe we can move the "re-written" part to some sections. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead image
, although I recognise your reasoning for this edit, I actually really like the previous Nosferatu image, and prefer it to the replacement one as an opening image to the article. It's a bit scarier and shows some cinematic shadow/negative space which I think captures the spirit of horror quite nicely. We definitely don't need two Count Orloks in the article though, so how about the previous image with the new caption? It's great to be sprucing the whole article up but just wanted to say that. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah i'm kind of flip flopping on it. The other image of Nosferatu is really good, i just felt like "ehh, two nosferatu's in one page?" Nosferatu's look and and visual appearance is important too. I'm thinking we could swap it back to that shadowy version once we expand upon the "Cinematic techniques" section, That way, we can have an image that hits like, a dozen check marks: historical, worldly, and captures imagery that's still used in horror cinema. I remember years ago there was once an image on the site that compared a similar image of Freddy Kruger with his claws out that was similar. I think we could bring back the shadow one with no real issues (other than it's not free, but with all the reasoning above, I think it's the idea choice). So yeah, long winded paragraph from me basically saying "I agree with you." :D Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)