|
Post by CT on Jan 27, 2008 14:58:26 GMT -5
I give them 10 because they do what slashers are supposed to do: gory, inventive kills, lots of bloodshed, nudity aplenty (or at least one really good shot) threatening killer and a relentless pace to get them through. These do it, and they're all great because of it. I'd say great performances and great writing are more important than all of those things combined when it comes to a movie being good, whether it's a slasher or not. I mean a lot of those things you mention would come from the writing, but the overall plot would be more important than kills and other things. It's simply a difference of opinion and the way we watch movies of course.You can have variation, but more often than not, fitting in a few of the points makes for a great film. They offer them and plenty of examples, making them all 10s. Again it's an opinion, but I'd disagree.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Jan 27, 2008 16:53:56 GMT -5
I'd say great performances and great writing are more important than all of those things combined when it comes to a movie being good, whether it's a slasher or not. I mean a lot of those things you mention would come from the writing, but the overall plot would be more important than kills and other things. It's simply a difference of opinion and the way we watch movies of course. Thanks. I needed to hear that after 2.5 days of trying my best not to say anything that would bother him. That's true, and there really isn't one. I don't really care if there is or not, as I enjoy the ones that don't just as much as the ones that do. However, out of sheer coincidence, my top 20 of the genre do include nudity, either exposed views or a brief flash. Not that it's a determining factor, but for other reasons, my top 20 all include nudity. All time, that's a different story, but for slashers, top 20 include it. That's all very cool to hear. I myself appreciate a movie that shows me things I'd like to see. Some of my favorite movies have nudity in them too. But I also love to see filmmakers put a little male nudity in there. Throw a bone to those of us who groan from the female T&A overkill of most horror movies. I think if they show enough guys' butts, guys might start to go- "this stuff is manipulative" instead of "this is gay!" and suddenly see that there is such a thing as "too much" when it comes to nudity.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jan 28, 2008 11:43:01 GMT -5
I've seen a few where a guy's been the ones on the receiving end of it, and it hasn't bothered me. I just think it's always come down, whether anyone will admit it or not, to that old argument of "A woman's body is a thing of beauty while a man's body is more like an off-road truck: utilitarian in design and purpose and not for beauty." That's the way I've seen it at least.
|
|
|
Post by 7 on Jan 28, 2008 12:02:34 GMT -5
Wow, that's a bit misogynistic, GL. But I'd say that nudity comes second to throw-away elements in a story such as: plot, characters, dialogue, and direction.
I mean, don't get me wrong - I like a nice set of breasts as much as the next guy, but I can clearly see where the female demographic is coming from when they say "there is a bit too much".
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Jan 28, 2008 13:43:33 GMT -5
I mean, don't get me wrong - I like a nice set of breasts as much as the next guy, but I can clearly see where the female demographic is coming from when they say "there is a bit too much". You know, its funny but nudity in film has never effected me one way or another, it does bother me a bit that filmmakers are so very willing to put a naked woman in a film, but not naked men as much. Its just frowned upon to show a naked man. And I do have to wonder at some comments from men on other forums when they seem to get almost offended when they accidentally catch a glimpse of a naked man in a film.... It doesn't make me mad, or offend me to see a naked woman onscreen. Of course, it definitely doesn't make a film better (or more entertaining, should I say, since I can't really call all of the films I enjoy GOOD films in the first place) either. So it doesn't take away from a film when it isn't there, or if it is there for me. Though I do have to admit, every once in awhile I do have to say, now why in the hell would this woman be naked at this particular time? Sometimes it is just sooooo obvious that I have to roll my eyes. But it never really seems to effect whether or not I enjoy a film. I would like to see it be a more fair though. And yes, I do agree the focus should be on the writing, the characters and creativity rather than on trying to figure out ways to get one or all of the actresses naked.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Jan 28, 2008 17:16:09 GMT -5
I just think it's always come down, whether anyone will admit it or not, to that old argument of "A woman's body is a thing of beauty while a man's body is more like an off-road truck: utilitarian in design and purpose and not for beauty." That's the way I've seen it at least. Well... That's not the way Eye see it. I mean, why do you think women are typically into guys'? Because of their sophistication? No, really? Their loyal...love of sports on television? No, seriously... Their ingrown need to complain everytime they're the slighest bit inconvenienced? Their admiration of beer and monster trucks and Larry the Cable Guy? Guess again...
|
|
|
Post by GP on Jan 29, 2008 5:01:47 GMT -5
I just think it's always come down, whether anyone will admit it or not, to that old argument of "A woman's body is a thing of beauty while a man's body is more like an off-road truck: utilitarian in design and purpose and not for beauty." That's the way I've seen it at least. Well... That's not the way Eye see it. I mean, why do you think women are typically into guys'? Because of their sophistication? No, really? Their loyal...love of sports on television? No, seriously... Their ingrown need to complain everytime they're the slighest bit inconvenienced? Their admiration of beer and monster trucks and Larry the Cable Guy? Guess again... An inate desire to wash my socks?
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jan 29, 2008 11:31:37 GMT -5
That's the way I've seen it. And I fail to see the mysogny. If anything, if puts women up even higher. They've always been the ones praised and admired because of their beauty, and even though they've been subjected to this merely because they're involved in crass exploitation films, it's still a lot easier to accept that factor because of history allowing them to have a more graceful and beautiful form than men.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Jan 29, 2008 12:08:48 GMT -5
They've always been the ones praised and admired because of their beauty, and even though they've been subjected to this merely because they're involved in crass exploitation films, it's still a lot easier to accept that factor because of history allowing them to have a more graceful and beautiful form than men. (head's starting to genuinely hurt now...) Um... Who do you think are the people who started praising women for their beauty? Show of hands, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jan 30, 2008 11:46:32 GMT -5
Men, but what does that have to do with it? It was a tradition that started long before it became sleazy.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Jan 30, 2008 16:16:07 GMT -5
It is somewhat sleazy only in the sense that it serves to limit the appreciation of women to only the physical. Throughout history (of Western civilization anyway. There have been some matriarchical societal structures elsewhere) women have tradtionally been treated as if they are intellectually inferior to men. Praising a woman for her appearance shoud certainly serve as a compliment, but one must still be able to see through physical attraction to the person underneath. I don't think that anyone here would begrudge the desire to see naked women because you (like I do) find them attractive. I do, however, find it a bit excessive to create one dimensional characters who serve no purpose other than to be naked and slutty and then die. That is not an appreciation of women. It is a conscious unwillingness to allow them to be anything deeper than sexual entities coupled with a punishment (violent, and gory death) for expressing their sexuality. Women have been denied agency and consciousness in decisionmaking in most instances in slasher films. I don't really want to get into applyin feminist or queer literary theory to slasher films, as it is a bit silly. That does not, however, speak to the fact that it IS mysogynist to approach a film with the expectation that female characters will behave in a certain rather base way, and especially to be dissapointed if the script is intelligent and unique enough that they do not.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Jan 31, 2008 7:53:35 GMT -5
Excellent post, HNT. I cannot disagree with a thing. Men, but what does that have to do with it? It was a tradition that started long before it became sleazy. I think you mean, before we had our modern definition of sleazy. Tradition or not, people change. And it's borderline silly to say our culture hasn't finally begun substantially recognizing men for their physical beauty as well. The way you put it, it's as though women don't make up half of our population. When I think they may even make up more than 50%...
|
|
|
Post by GL on Jan 31, 2008 11:35:29 GMT -5
No, I meant it more in the way you said it, as before throughout history that has never been considered a sleazy tactic, and for this one to have that tag leveled on it because of that is where I was going for. I can see where you're coming from, but that's what I was getting at.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Jan 31, 2008 16:56:49 GMT -5
So anyway, to bring this full-circle to what I was trying to say at the start: we have reached a point in our culture where men are as sexualized and objectified as women. Movies often fail to realize that because of the tradition. But that doesn't mean that's the way it'll always be or that's the way it should be. I think it's only that way because most of the people making these decisions (looking for actresses to be nude, etc.) are much the same as the people were decades before them.
Thankfully, I've noticed that that is starting to change. David DeCoteau is a good example of a filmmaker who prefers to fill his movies to the brim with very good-looking young men in various stages of undress. To the point where it's straight up objectification. And very appealing. He's been so successful with these films, he has his own company. I can say nothing other than: "Bravo."
|
|
|
Post by GL on Feb 1, 2008 11:35:39 GMT -5
Right, the tradition has been kept throughout history, and only the modern adaptation of assigning it a sleazy label has made it one to be thought of as undesirous. It's one that I've never understood (especially since horror isn't the only "mainstream" genre in the world where women take their clothes off and expose everything) yet it's the one that gets the most flack for doing so, even though they are the ones that have been keeping the centuries old tradition of doing so for their beauty. I don't find it doing so only for the objectification (which the most extreme sleaze pics do, but that's another story) but merely for following in a centuries-old tradition.
And there's been a few DeCouteau films I've seen that weren't half bad. Ring of Darkness, Leeches, The Brotherhood films and Fast Lane (I think, it was about a demonic car but can't remember the name for some reason) have all been pretty decent and watchable, thoiugh I've found his Full Moon films a little more enjoyable.
|
|