|
Post by GL on Sept 15, 2010 9:40:25 GMT -5
That was an intense debate! Good idea for a board GL and thanks for creating it Jen! You're welcome. And thanks again for that, Jen. And I'm just glad it ended civilly like so many of our debates have.
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Sept 21, 2010 18:31:05 GMT -5
Ok I've been on holidays but I see that the board is up and running. Now here's the tricky part - where exactly do we draw the line? I think we need a date line -somewhere around 1975 - cause otherwise it get's quite murky.
|
|
|
Post by CT on Sept 21, 2010 23:51:11 GMT -5
Yeah I agree that it should go past 1968 at least until 1970, maybe '75 like Matt suggested.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Sept 22, 2010 8:59:10 GMT -5
No 70' at the latest Id say, because once you get passed 1970 your dealing with 70's horror cinema which is very different breed of film. I think it should stop with 1969 Rosemary's Baby Night of the living dead era
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Sept 22, 2010 9:16:44 GMT -5
The board already has some early 70's films though.I guess when I think of classic 70's I'm thinkin' Madhouse or Phibes or Crepping Flesh, Horror Express or films of that ilk.They honestly feel like a different time than TCM or Exorcist. I guess that's what ultimately sunk 'em.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Sept 22, 2010 9:43:52 GMT -5
If it feels more like a Gothic horror film from the early 50s in tone and execution and is made between 1968 and 1975, I say it fits there. If it feels more in tone with modern-day stuff and is made between 1968 and 1975, it doesn't belong there.
I've always separated it as everything from 1968 and before, then select films from 68-75, while more modern horror is select films from 68-75 and then everything from 75 onward.
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Sept 22, 2010 9:54:32 GMT -5
Actually on second thought maybe we should draw the line at 1990. I think it really comes down to the country of origin more than anything. The American trajectory is so well documented in the excellent doco The American Nightmare.Yet the poms were still happy to churn out the gothic chillers up to as far as the 80's
|
|
|
Post by GL on Sept 22, 2010 9:59:45 GMT -5
But you also have to include content. No nudity, no violence, you're a classic horror all the way through. Packed and loaded with it, you're a modern horror film.
Those are those selected films I mentioned earlier, that's the guideline right there.
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Sept 22, 2010 10:10:35 GMT -5
But you're definition of no nudity no violence whould therefore classify something like The Others as a classic horror film, something of which it definately is not. This goes back to my original point. We need to set a date line.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Sept 22, 2010 10:51:19 GMT -5
But it's from 2001? How is that even a question when it comes to this?
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Sept 22, 2010 10:54:10 GMT -5
That's my point it's not. Period. But yet by the criteria you laid out for non violence non nudity, it becomes relevant.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Sept 22, 2010 11:30:31 GMT -5
Personally, I think that a date of 1968 is a little too early. it is true that NOTLD changed the game that year, but it was an originator and so there were still plenty of "classic" horror films in the years that followed. Personally, I think that 1975 should be the general cut off, but it should be understood that not every film that preceeds that date is a classic horror film (i.e. The Exorcist and TCM are modern as they come). Also, I would suggest that 1975 not be a hard line rule, meaning that if somebody wants to appeal for us to consider a later film, I am certianly willing to consider it if there is an argument to be made for that partiular film. In other words, it has to be a combination of date and content.
More importantly, though, I think the real purpose of this board should be to discuss the films of the 20's - 50's that otherwise would be neglected. Sure we can discuss others, but hopefully people won't be working so hard to try to find films that may or may not fit here when we indisputably have hundreds of films that clearly qualify, and that do not get enough love around here.
|
|
|
Post by CT on Sept 22, 2010 11:37:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Sept 22, 2010 11:43:24 GMT -5
More importantly, though, I think the real purpose of this board should be to discuss the films of the 20's - 50's that otherwise would be neglected. Sure we can discuss others, but hopefully people won't be working so hard to try to find films that may or may not fit here when we indisputably have hundreds of films that clearly qualify, and that do not get enough love around here. This is why I put '60s and before in the description, it seems like films from the '70s and later get plenty of attention. I do agree with Matt's point about films like The Abominable Dr. Phibes and The Creeping Flesh though.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Sept 23, 2010 9:42:51 GMT -5
That's my point it's not. Period. But yet by the criteria you laid out for non violence non nudity, it becomes relevant. As mentioned, there's a timeline you have to consider as well. If you're talking about a film around that time period (late 60s, early 70s) and they fall into that trap of no nudity, no violence, then they're ideal for discussion in that section. If they're past 1975, regardless of content matter, just being past that date makes them modern horror. It's gotta be done with the two issues at the same time, not just one or the other. Personally, I think that a date of 1968 is a little too early. it is true that NOTLD changed the game that year, but it was an originator and so there were still plenty of "classic" horror films in the years that followed. Personally, I think that 1975 should be the general cut off, but it should be understood that not every film that preceeds that date is a classic horror film (i.e. The Exorcist and TCM are modern as they come). Also, I would suggest that 1975 not be a hard line rule, meaning that if somebody wants to appeal for us to consider a later film, I am certianly willing to consider it if there is an argument to be made for that partiular film. In other words, it has to be a combination of date and content. More importantly, though, I think the real purpose of this board should be to discuss the films of the 20's - 50's that otherwise would be neglected. Sure we can discuss others, but hopefully people won't be working so hard to try to find films that may or may not fit here when we indisputably have hundreds of films that clearly qualify, and that do not get enough love around here. Exactly my feelings 100% on this. NotLD started the revolution, but it didn't come into full effect until a little later, as there was still a lot to say about what was coming before it (Hammer, Amicus and Vincent Price, I feel, all did some of their best work after that came out, while what we may consider to be modern horror at the time was considered to be the Cult films, or the underground) and it wasn't until we get to TCM, The Exorcist and then Jaws where it finally put the death knell on those films and it swayed over to the more modern style of films. That's the way I've always viewed it as well. And as a side note, the 20s-50s tag was right in keeping with where I wanted to start this up, films right in that general frame.
|
|