Talk:Monster movie

Title
To be within the naming convention of the film project, shouldn't this article's title be Monster films? - LA @ 22:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the term "film" used when describing this sub-genre? Stabby Joe (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Should Jurassic Park (1993) be included in this article?
Subject says it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.245.78 (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want it in the article just edit it yourself. But I agree that Jurassic Park is not a monster movie. Monsters are imaginary beings that embody fear, dinosaurs were a natural group of animals that were the dominant vertebrates on land between 230 and 65 million years ago, there's a big difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.153.53 (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Monster movie → Monster film – All articles or categories about film are called "film" not "movie", just brouse through the film categories, it is obvious. E-Kartoffel (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not necessarily; we still have road movie since "road film" is less common. It seems to be the same case here, where "monster movie" is more commonly used than "monster film". Here are the Google Books Search results for 2011: "monster film" vs. "monster movie". Not to mention that in WorldCat (which can look at book titles and tables of content and abstracts), "monster film" has 9 results where "monster movie" has 65 results. I can understand trying to be consistent, but "monster movie" is as much as a label as "chick flick" is. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to oppose. While "film" titles are predominant, category:Film genres contains several variations in the titles about genres. Google ngram shows a clear preference. Google Scholar vs  and Google Books  vs  also show a marked preference. There is a limit to the application of consistency in naming when some formulations achieve a level of cultural currency. Barring any actual evidence to to contrary, I think the alliteration makes "monster movie"  much more common than "monster film". older ≠ wiser 12:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose; alliteration causes this to be the more common title. Powers T 00:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I also believe that monster movie is the name in common use, for all the same reasons as listed above. Additionally, the lead paragraph does mention the broad, informal nature of the genre.  Indeed, creature feature is mentioned as an alternative description, this giving support to the "alliteration theory" of why "monster" is used instead of "film."  Senator2029 &#124; talk &#124; contribs 02:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comment above and others' comments as well. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 02:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Most traditional monsters may be villains, but...
I really don't think King Kong qualifies as a villain, and we have his film's poster at the top right of the Article. He was more along the lines of a misunderstood creature that was kidnapped by a narcissistic film-maker. This was more obvious in the 2005 version, to be sure, but it's there in the 1933 version if you really stop to take a closer look. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that the last line says "Piranha 3D was released in 2010". Is it really relevant in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.88.228 (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)