I don't consider Halloween a slasher film. It is a horror / thriller, but it doesn't focus on the murders specifically. Halloween is one of the grandparents of the slasher genre, but I think the sequels and the knock offs are the early children of the slasher genre. I also don't consider Psycho a slasher film, but Psycho II definitely is a slasher.
Its interesting looking at the Siskel n Ebert stuff given our modern age. And just what some Slashers could actually be saying. I mean wasn't there a minor butthurt outrage lately because some study had women saying they would rather be in the woods with a bear over a man? And I think that's just a scientific way of putting some things women have been saying for decades now into a more digestible form. Things about as a man on a date you mostly have to just worry about rejection or looking foolish. For women its worrying if you will be murdered or worse. Slashers are a reflection on society. And sometimes a spotlight on the more odious elements of it intentional or not. Maybe this is why some react poorly to them? Some facts and realities are hard to accept. A few see the badness and want to fix it or at least lament it, others get angry or hardcore Copium abuse on it. (Sometimes slashers are just being skeevy or know most people don't care about some guy getting killed though.)
While I do think that many slashers "hate women" I think the ones I like don't necessarily follow that convention. Well, except for The Burning. When I think of slasher films that hate women, I think of stuff like the New York Ripper, Blood Rage, and even Don't Go in the House. I think as far as treating scared women as spectacle, I think stuff like My Bloody Valentine, and House on Sorority Row feel like they treat women as actual people. I think it just has more to do with lazy writing than anything else. Obviously, falling back on those archetypes could mean that the person has a natural inclination to that, but I am not here to psychoanalyze authors' morals. I think that like anything, it depends on the film, even if there was a general trend.
Yeah, I had a portion of the script that got cut out that went into depth with this segment. The whole "sometimes the curtains are just blue" argument. With depiction of violence towards women in film, there's many different approaches the creators and readers could take. Every choice in writing a script, casting, directing, shooting, and editing has a purpose. Very rarely do you find that it doesn't. Even when someone says "oh we held on that shot for longer because it felt right", you have to question why it felt right to them. Things inspire other things, subconscious decisions, yadda yadda. A writer could say they wrote the villain that way as an example of the cultural landscape at the time, and that's why the killer seems to relish in the dishing out of violence towards women. Another writer could say he was inspired by other films that did the same thing. A director could just say they really wanted to show off some cool effects they had planned for this kill. Pretty much everything at every step of the process is up in the air, but decisions have to be made, and decisions have to come from somewhere. After these decisions are made, it is then up to the viewer of the film to interpret their themes and intended messages, and how well they can substantiate their argument. Two people can sit down to watch the same film and come away from it with a vastly different interpretations and emotions regarding the film. The part of this that made it into the final script was where I discussed that if slasher's made one person feel empowered, and another person feel belittled or demeaned, then that's entirely their own. As far as the Ebert quote. I didn't make it clear enough and I noticed this on my re-encode watchback when I was looking for rendering errors, so I had no way to fix it that didn't result in an extra 8 hours of work re-rendering watching encoding watching. I didn't say Roger Ebert was right about slashers hating women. I was merely saying he wasn't 100% wrong. A lot of slashers were just either following a trend, or could just be interpreted as not favoring women. It's just when we zoom out and view them as a whole that it becomes a lot more problematic and you can start nitpicking and questioning all the little decisions that were most likely made in haste and with no thought to the larger ramifications of their choices.
@@Houndovhell Agree with everything you say. And horror fans have a real beef with Ebert, but they almost never listen to what he is actually saying. Sure he did call for "immoral" films to basically be censored by using monetary incentive, as in don't support violent movies at the box office. However, actually listening to his film criticism in particular, he does tend to give credit for a lot of things that deserve it like his TCM review. And that film is the cream of the crop in the "nihilistic horror", a term I made up to try to describe horror movies he hates. So imagine a competent horror film say like Friday the 13th part 4 not being nearly the same level of quality, how do you think he would respond to it? And this seems to be the common sentiment of most critics at the time. Also, I didn't mean to imply that you agreed, I was just telling how I interpreted the violence in these movies.
Nihilistic is a very good way to describe TCM. That entire movie can be summed up with the shot of Sally screaming as she's driven away at the end of the film. Happy to get away, sad to have endured it, and confused as to not only what happened in its entirety, but why it had to happen at all. If I remember correctly Ebert did not like the f13 franchise not one bit, so part 4 was probably on the chopping block as he strutted into the theater. I think critics have a different perspective than the average viewer of cinema does. They have to see nearly every film that comes out, sometimes more than once, and also spend at least 1-2 hours writing a well-worded and justified review of all of those films. When I was doing my extensive research for the Found Footage video I started the first month or two watching found footage films every spare minute that I had. I very quickly noticed that I was becoming agitated at the inherent structure of found footage and was growing tired of how similar and low-effort the less popular entries felt, that when I came across a good one I was still being super negative towards it. I switched away from that viewing routine pretty fast when I picked up on it. I can't imagine what it must have been like to be a movie reviewer between 1980 and 1982 having to watch all those low-effort slashers one after another after another.
@@Houndovhell that’s an interesting anecdote about you not liking the good entries. That’s honestly why I recommend skipping to Friday part 4, but I thought that people would still not like it, as I thought it wasn’t necessarily that it was “the same story all over again” but for another reason. I thought They just blamed it on being the same thing due to not knowing what they didn’t like. But I guess that it is also due to experiencing similar films constantly which can make you even dislike the good examples. I just wanted to say “what do you mean the same thing as the other films? You didn’t watch those.” Although, if they liked the formula, it wouldn’t be too bad, but then they would treat it as all of the movies are on the same level. Also I never meant to call F13 nihilistic, but that Roger Ebert saw it as nihilistic. Sometimes when I see his Friday the 13th reviews I think “did we watch the same movie?” Even if I could squint to kind of get at what he means.
What do you mean me not liking the good entries? If it's the found footage thing, I was mainly talking about movies that either at the end of the watch, or after the fact, that I would consider to be good entries, and how watching all the bad ones leading up to and surrounding it soured my initial reception to it. I just noticed a lot of negativity coming from the bad ones that it seeped into my viewing experience of the good ones. Realistically there's only so many times I can see shaky cam of a forest with college kids running around yelling at nothing before my brain pulls a Scanners. But that's an interesting to think about. If someone had never seen a slasher and they started with part 4, how would it affect their perception of it. I grew up watching f13 from part 3 onward for the longest time as my mom didn't like the first two. When I did finally watch the first two, they were underwhelming, but I could still enjoy them for what they were and what they brought to the table. Generally it's very hard to treat a film as its own thing. Everything is relative, and that's why I try to keep those two sides, films and movies, separate. I wouldn't compare a film like Friday the 13th part 6 to Akira Kurosawa's entire filmography, for example. They're in completely different leagues and I can find good things in both of them.
Great video and well researched. Intelligent perspective. Just a friendly heads up.. "Giallo" when pronounced correctly, should rhyme with "Shallow". Not the commonly mispronounced, "gee-allow" . Thanks again for a great video!
Definitely dating myself here but Friday the 13th was my 1st big screen horror flick thanks to my Mom and good old Betsy Palmer snookering her into thinking it was something it wasn't 😂. 1st time checking out the channel. Great review imo.
Nothing wrong with being "old"er! I'm very happy that my viewer base is consistently between the ages of 25 and 55. It lets me know I don't have to attempt the retention editing that genZ and younger prefer, as that's a style that grates on my senses pretty quickly. So I enjoy that people who view my channel are more aligned with my taste in style and pace, even though I do my best to get to the point and keep it visually interesting. I actually saw the remake of Friday the 13th in theaters with my mom. But that's because she's a huge fan of the series. Still, always love the anecdote of having to see the "your breasts have perfect nipple placement, babe" scene with my mom sitting right next to me in a crowded theater. Thanks for watching!
Thanks! They were mine, too. I'd binge all the big slashers with my mom all the time. Kind of ingrained in my childhood. Then later I started venturing out after I saw The Shining and grew a taste for cinema as a whole thanks to that. The last horror film that really did something for me, off the top of my head, was Hereditary I think. I love horror, but all the recent films I've been hooked on are Drama style films like Painting of a Girl on Fire or Good Time. Horror has kind of just become my popcorn filler go-to, instead of where I go for pleasing the filmmaking side of my brain. Thanks again for watching!
Even though, I'm not a slasher film fan, I do have slasher films that I like. Even though I get frustrated at slasher films that are "so bad, they're good" because they are most likely boring, I do like a well executed horror film. I think that's because I have seen enough movies, books, comics, etc. that I realize that nothing is original, so the lack of originality in the genre does not really bother me. And slasher films can often be effective or at least interesting stories with the genre. Which is kind of why I get frustrated when people call bad or mediocre movies "good slasher films." Like are we saying that Sleepaway Camp and My Bloody Valentine are in the same league? C'mon slasher fans, we really need separate the good slashers from the bad ones. I know Sleepaway Camp's ending is iconic, but are we really saying it's a good movie? I feel like the bad reputation of slasher can slightly be hurt even more with mediocre films being more popular than the good ones. Although, I think the genre is far more broad as I think it involves pretty much a horror of any kind that centers around a human killer and has a body count. So even if TCM does not "feel" like a slasher film, I would say it is. Last House on the Left is borderline a slasher, but I think it does not fit, as it is not the primary horror, and we sort of relish in the deaths of the villains of the movie. Obviously I understand that when we think of slashers, those don't immediately come to mind, but I the genre is limited enough even if we include those, so why not. Also I think that the secondary requirements are pretty much all worthless with genre classification, but that's just me.
Yeah I ended my anthology video with the quote that embodies that Horror fans already know that most of their movies are bad. I think Slasher fans are even more aware. A lot of the people I know that like Slashers the most, don't really care about qualities attributed to cinema. They talk for hours about gore and kill effects, which final girl is better, this killer vs that killer, a lot of things that don't interest me. I'm much more interested in the filmmaking process and what makes a good shot, how a movie's script is paced, and so on. At the end of the day, what really matters is that movies are supposed to be entertaining. Slasher fans aren't really saying they're good films, more that they're good movies. Original Texas Chainsaw Massacre mainly doesn't feel like a slasher because after the initial leatherface kills, there's more than one killer and it turns into several other genre's blended together, making it hard to classify. Exploitation, proto-torture porn, cannibals, hillbilly horror. All of which take up more screen-time than the parts that could be called a slasher. Which is why I mentioned that leatherface fits the mold of a slasher villain, but that the film doesn't. It has too much going on for it to be reduced down to just a slasher. And the Secondaries that I mentioned are kind of what made the generic slasher formula, so they were important to quantify and discuss. They're all things that, in one form or another, became prevalent within the genre. Not every film has to hit them every time, but they help discern the difference between closely-related films.
@@Houndovhell I guess I just feel that horror films aren't given enough credit. Sometimes "bad horror films" like Killer Klowns from Outer Space, are just gory comedies and aren't actually bad movies. Slashers are interesting, because I think a decent amount of them, like the ones you mentioned as highlights are actually solid films. Not masterpieces, but I think that if you recommended them to a normal horror fan, they would probably enjoy it. So when people treat certain films that aren't good the same level as those that are, it can be confusing, because you don't know if it is a hidden gem like My Bloody Valentine, or a trash film like Blood Rage (I find Blood Rage really boring). I think that is why I like 1981-1983 period where they tried to make effective horror movies that were in the genre, before it became all about the kills. It feels weird to want more from my slashers, but there's slasher films I love, and it feels strange to treat other entries in the genre differently. Obviously this is all subjective at the end of the day, and if you legitimately enjoy something because it's good, or just enjoy it ironically, good for you. But for me personally, I would just love for more people to take the genre seriously I guess. As for TCM, I can see your point, even if I disagree.
When I said in my video "i can see where someone would be lenient", TCM was the chief example in my mind. It's damn close to being a slasher for me. I agree that horror doesn't get enough credit. It feels like a monumental success anytime we see a horror film at the oscars, and yet cinema nerds who are also horror fans know that the ones getting the nods aren't the best of the year in most cases. It's gotta be like animation fans seeing disney/pixar up for awards every year. I hate the oscars/awards ritual, but that's an unsightly and lengthy tangent in and of itself. I agree that slashers aren't masterpieces, but are good films. I have to explain to people that my brain works in two shifts. Analytical pretentious film buff mode, and brain shut off enjoy wacky movie mode. My favorite subgenre of horror is werewolf films. Not a single werewolf film can sit above a 7.5(mayyybe an 8 if I'm feeling generous)/10 for me. I love them to death, but they're not good like how the works of Tarantino, Kubrick, or Tarkovsky are good. Another fun tangent is how arbitrary ratings systems are. Funny you mention Killer Klowns, that's one of my favorites for that part of my brain that just wants fun colors and cheap thrills.
@@Houndovhell yeah most of these films that I think are good are 7-8 out of 10s. I don’t think I’ve seen a 10/10 horror film that’s a slasher aside from the debatable TCM, although I would probably give Nightmare on Elm Street a 9/10. Although most of them I’ve seen are like 6/10 at best, and that’s if I’m entertained but not caring about any of the characters. I’m actually trying to create a list on Letterboxd that has slasher recommendations for normal horror fans (>7/10 or important to the genre). Unfortunately, I haven’t seen some of the more well regarded ones like The Funhouse or a lot of stuff from after Scream to now. I don’t really ever turn off my brain, but maybe I’m more lenient on decent films than others are. I pretty much go like “does it work?” and it either does or doesn’t. If it works, then I give it a 5.5 or higher. I’m very much “is it good?” As that’s all I really care about. If it is bad, I won’t like it unless it’s Plan 9 from Outer Space or The Room. I don’t really have a preference as I tend to be pretty open minded to different genres.
@@thomasffrench3639 I have all kinds of different considerations. Camera work. Great. Script. Great. Acting. Great. But none of that needs to be considered if I really enjoy the movie for what it is. And critics aren't going to take away my passion for anything. Sure, I will listen to what Ebert had to say, but I don't agree with him at all. He's one of those who televised the city name of a Friday the 13th actress because he was angry that she would stoop to the level of making one of these movies. Yet he claims that Halloween and The Devil's Rejects are so great. I admit, I love Halloween 1978. I also enjoy Devil's Rejects. But I would never want to dox someone for any decision they have made. I think it might have been Siskel who doxxed the actress...? As for what number I would use. Camera work can dictate it, as well as acting. But if I just love the movie for what it is, I will actually add three points over the line. 13/10 Friday the 13th 1-4&6 13/10 Sleepaway Camp 13/10 Halloween 1978/Ends 13/10 My Bloody Valentine 1981 13/10 Nope 13/10 Pan's Labyrinth 13/10 Let the Right One In 13/10 An American Werewolf in London 13/10 Silence of the Lambs Or... 5/10 Blood Rage 7.5/10 Friday the 13th Part V A New Beginning 1/10 Body Melt 4/10 When Evil Lurks 8/10 Sleepaway Camp 2 7/10 Sleepaway Camp 3 ??/10 Nekromantiks 1&1 ??/10 Blood Diner Back when I was in high school... 2/10 Dead Alive 6/10 Texas Chain Saw Massacre 3/10 The Evil Dead Today... 7.5/10 Dead Alive 13/10 TCM 13/10 The Evil Dead As time goes on, so does my thoughts regarding these categories. I'm still not sure where to place Silence of the Lambs when it comes to genre. For the last few decades I have always wondered why horror mags have features Lambs and Lector as horror icons, because to me that's a thriller. Godzilla also get lumped into the horror genre by many. Myself? I don't.
Heheh, Freddy Kruger was one of my earliest sexual fantasies. Glad you mentioned he was a sexual character, not many mention this aspect of him. (Also just gotta object to your inclusion of New Nightmare in the 90's section of the 3 big ones. That one is a solid masterpiece, apart from some bad effects.)
I've told this story a million times. i'm a 90's kid. My grandpa was a huge movie buff and had a massive VHS and BETA collection. So around 1997, I started to get into his movie collection more. Watching all these classic movies I hadn't seen already. Before this I grew up on Gremlins, Critters, Ticks, Serial mom, Who framed Roger rabbit, The rocketeer, all the movies that came out during the 90's that were big, for kids, and a couple 90's horror movies. The leprechaun movies, Child's play 1-3, Face/off, Alien 3, Alien: Resurrection, Terminator 2, Jacob's ladder, Halloween, etc. Wasn't till around 1997 that I discovered Critters 2, the Friday and Elm street franchise, CHUD, The prowler, CHUD, The terminator, Robocop 1 and 2, Pet Semetary, Alien and Aliens, Predator 2, Class of Nuke'em high, Killer klowns from outerspace, etc going through my grandfather's video collection. By the time Star Ship troopers came out in 1997, my grandfather was like "You need to see this movie, you'll like it." As a horror fan and music fan...the late 90's and 2000's were just not a good time for me; teen pop, reality TV, horror becoming mainstream, the death of MTV, the Post scream movies, PG13, found footage, the Saw franchise. When Rob Zombie came out with House of 1000 corpses, I as a horror fan was like "YES! I haven't been completely and totally ignored as a horror fan! Somebody is still looking out for me! A turn to the old stuff!!!! I hope this influences the rest of the movies...." of course that DIDN'T happen. Scream 4 is still my favorite Scream sequel, despite the flaws. I remember when they came out always feeling disappointed. By the late 90's; horror becoming mainstream. Losing it's edges and exploitation roots. The "I know what you did last summer" franchise and all the other films after that - by this time I was a Scream hater. I hated Scream. I blamed Scream for all the problems with modern horror, etc. "Scream RUINED horror" it wasn't till like 2008 when I decided "just watch Scream on it's own merits." and loved it and I still love it. Since Scream 4, there has been a lot of people revisiting their criticism of the movie. A lot saying "Scream 4 was ahead of it's time." There is a video about this where they basically say "in the 2000's slashers were not in the mainstream. Nobody cared about them. There was no great 'I miss the Scream franchise.' It was all about Found footage, paranormal, and Saw movies." and therefor Scream 4 which came out in 2011 was not really in a place where it would get the appreciate and love and respect it deserves. It still doesn't exist for the majority of Scream fans. There seems to be 2-3 types of Scream fans. 1.There has never been a bad Scream movie. 2.Scream 1 and 4 are the best movies in the franchise. 3.Scream 1, 5, and 6; because they are the newly released movies. Well, here is the thing. Not only did I hate the trend of the 2000's and the mainstreaming of horror in the 2000's. Not only did I find a new love and appreciate for Scream, 3 years before Scream 4 came out; which got me excited and pumped up to watch it. I saw in theaters. But due to better and easier access to the internet in the 2000's, I was able to find even more movies from the 70's and 80's that I didn't even know about. Was able to find all the slasher movies from the 80's golden age; Prom night, Bloody birthday, My bloody Valentine, Terror train, Silent night deadly night, Silent night bloody night, Black Christmas, The initiation, Funeral home, Mortuary, Butcher baker nightmare maker, Frightmare. I also discovered the giallo genre and italian horror in general. I had watched a Bravo special about 100 scariest moments in horror and 100 scariest horror movies and they talked about Dario Argento and Mario Bava and my reaction was "I can't wait to find these movies!!!" so I immediately went on my computer and started doing research and I began to find copies of all the movies. Bravo would air these specials multiple times in a single day, for several days. So I actually took a piece of paper and pencil and I'd watch the special again and having memorized it, I knew when to start writing and I took several notes. Not just the movie but the directors. Then I came across other 70's and 80's classics. So for 2 decades [2000's and 2010's]....I watched about 96% of nothing but movies from the 70's and 80's movies, with my favorite 90's films thrown in, and maybe 2, 3, 4 modern movies thrown in. Like May, Ginger snaps, Let the right one in. Very very few. So basically, instead of the mainstream going ahead and watching what ever trends and movies in the mainstream. By the late 90's and 2000's, I was playing catch up with the older generation from the 70's and 80's. I'd give maybe 3 modern movies a chance but I'd be picky every year or so, largely picked due to word of mouth, and the rest I saw in theaters with my mom. I did try and give more 2020 movies a rwatch and give a few more 2010 movies a watch. More so then usual but ya, not a lot of it I've liked. I've been more expanding my 20's, 30's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's movies more then I did before. Kind of gave up on modern cinema again,lol. I gave it 2 years; I watched around 8-10 modern movies in 2022 and 2023 including Scream 5 and 6. Didn't like the majority of them. In fact hate a lot of them. Like Terrifier 2. So ya, that's my story in relation to horror and slasher movies. In 2009, a metal band wrote a song bashing modern horror movies. I might as well of written the song and it 100% fits my thoughts about the genre then and now. "What happened to the films of yesterday The 70's and 80's were the golden age Horror films now are a f**king joke! They make me choke! Gone is the blood, gone are the t*t$ Gone is everything that we f**king miss! MTV sh*t is shoved down our throats! The film makers of today give us no f**king hope!" "PG-13 horror is packing the seats This generation sucks! " "The hip hop influence, infecting the culture Busta Rhymes and Michael Myers?! This sh*t is f**king torture!" "Lack of ideas, regression through technology Will Peter Jackson save us? No we get that lame ass trilogy!" By the way, again, I'm a 90's kid. I am 36 years old. So even as a 13, 14, 15 year old kid I had these opinions. All through out the 2000's I was confused and going "What the hell is happening?! Everything has changed. Horror movies suck now!!!" Woodstock 1999, MTV interviewed an attendee. Attendee: I'm sick of the backstreet boys on MTV live. I'm f**king sick of it. You know? MTV: Don't hold back on me... Attendee: I'm not holding back, I hate that sh*t. THAT WAS ME. I WAS THAT GUY. To quote one of the MTV guys talking about MTV in 1999 and the 2000's "What happened was...teen pop." "They were MAD AT US because we TOOK THEIR MTV AWAY AND GAVE IT TO THEIR LITTLE SISTER." That 100% expresses me exact feelings about culture, about the music in the 2000's, and horror movies in the 2000's. I was sick and tired of NON STOP CONSTANTLY hearing Britney Spears and NYSC and The backstreet boys, and then hip hop. I mean it was all over TV, all over the radio, seeing people listening to it in public, and now it's in my horror movies?!?! As everyone has admitted "They don't make movies for ME anymore." "Movies must appeal to EVERYBODY." Sorry, but I'm a 90'd kid and back then, movies DID NOT APPEAL TO EVERYBODY. They appealed to a specific demographic. I can just go on and on and on. Movies of today are all about concept and commentary, meta, and questioning everything. Nothing can just be for art's sake anymore. 98% of all the movies I watch today have to lecture me, treat me like an idiot; that I just "can't understand subtexts", gone is all subtly and "the art comes first, the commentary comes second.", etc.Scream 5 and 6, part of the problem among many other problems is.....Scream is suppose to be a commentary on modern horror. Problem is......there really IS NONE. There is no clever commentary to do with horror, that a Scream movie can use as it's plot and so forth. Plus the boring characters and boring wooden acting. During the "meta commentary' about prequels and all of that. it all felt far too forced, far too "I don't buy a single word they are saying." and really "prequel" that is the commentary?! And then "toxic fandoms" REALLY?! That is what you got for meta commentary?! No awesome lines like "You forgot the first role a remake Jill, Don't F**K WITH THE ORIGINAL." I can just go on and on and on. I despise the color grading and shot on digital. I 100% agree with Tarantino when it comes to shot on film vs digital. I hate digital. "I feel cheated when I notice it's been shot on digital or it's being projected on digital." me too. I f**king HATE, HATE, HATE this blue lighting and blue tint in modern films. I can't STAND IT. Terrifier 2 is a major offender; overly lit, lots of ugly blue lighting, every character is wearing blue, an ugly bluish tint over everything. Even the chain link fence at the school has this bluish look to it. Then you add in the contrast between all of that and white backgrounds, the white floor, etc....it's just horrendous. Makes it almost impossible for me to even look at the screen, it's so unappealing. Scream 5 and 6 and a ton of other movies; outside scenes. Day light scenes look terrible. They look blurred and overly exposed and lit. Ruining the environments. Terrible ugly lighting. Shot on digital is the bane of my existence. I HATE, HATE, HATE shot on digital. Then you add in bland boring characters and "no film can stand on it's own anymore. Everything has to do be part of a trilogy." ruining film. Again, I can just go on and on and on and on.
@@NebulaMortis06 I never got into Bloodfreak. Frightmare is still pretty damn good. Nice to see another metal fan,lol. By the way, in case you didnt know.Frightmare is the title of a really good British slasher movie. I recommend it.
Slasher is my favorite sub genre TCM 1,2,3 and 4 arent Slasher, but Remake,Prequel to the remake,2013 and Netflix one are The leatherface one is not a Slasher is a CW remake of Devils reject
I agree with that. I wish I had more time to make the video, cause that would have been an interesting tangent to go down. And I think Final Destination fits the slasher mold better than Ju-on. Ju-on is basically a ghost movie, but Final Destination has a body count, mystery killer, and it revolves entirely around surviving and our main protagonist. If we're looking for J-Horror that fits, I'd argue Pulse and The Ring are closer, though they're too paranormal, which could also be a strike against Final Destination as well.
Coffin joe had a anthology tv series called "Beyond from beyond to beyond" from 1968 one episodes was abbout a "pastel"(i dont know how to translate this) that killed woman with Big butt, saddly this episode and the entire series are lost
The name of the series sounds like it would have been up my alley. I keep telling my friend to name her next game "name 2: the first one" as a joke, but also because it makes sense since the first one was kind of a prequel to the actual planned events. So it fits, but is also funny at the same time.
@@Houndovhell saddly The serie was on a Tv station that a few years later was bought by a teleevangelist that destroyed everything they made before,we only have a few stories because Coffin Joe and his main writer(R F Lucchetti, rip 06\04\2024) adapted some to Books and comics
Could have sworn I replied to this one, but was inside a store so maybe dodgy internet interfered. But I agree! I still can watch the Rob Zombie Halloweens more times, and happily so, than I can the David Gordon Green ones. F13TH remake is maybe top 3 jason for me? and I agree that the acting for NoES remake definitely dragged it down the most out of all the issues I personally had with it. I think even my second biggest gripe, the way Freddy is portrayed, is more of a personal opinion, and not at all rooted in objectivity. Thanks for watching! (:
I was with you all the way until you just casually skipped over Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, a perfect love poem to the classics and a fitting headstone to commemorate a great endpoint to the entire genre. 0/10. ,,, Okay, not really. Great work! But you should give BTM a chance if you haven't. Keep em comin!
Its mentioned in this video and has a bigger portion in my found footage video! Love the movie Edit: or at least it should be in this video, was a hectic process. I’ll double check when I’m back in front of a computer
I gotta ask why you think many of the movies hate women? 9/10 times the main protagonist is a female, who through outsmarting, or increasing her knowledge of her attacker, or even in some kind of martial Or even guerrilla style tactics. Yes it may be dolled up for the screen but any way you look at it, typically the woman stands victorious over her male assailant. And most of the time any male companion, in a close relationship or otherwise, are all killed off due to their own hubris, stupidity, or self sacrifice. Men are portrayed as ignorant, drunk, horney, immature, and dismissive of most females in distress. Painting with a VERY wide brush here, of course it's a trend rather than a simple equation. But I'd say men are treated just as bad as any woman who is not the "final girl" or main protagonist, if not worse in many cases. How many male protagonists from horror who don't die, and act like a reasonable adult male? Now, how many women from horror, slashers of course, can you name? And how much more popular is she than her closest male cohort? Laurie Strode Halloween, Nancy Nightmare on Elm St, Ripley Alien. In those 3 films alone you have the top 3 modern horror protagonists more well known than any man in similar roles. So i must respectfully disagree. All the best.
I think it’s mostly a mixed bag. Sure the female heroes are strong, but there’s also dumb girls who are “sexy” and a lot of women in these films are sexualized in their deaths which is a bit questionable. I don’t think “hate women” is the issue, it’s more that it’s not really the most progressive, at least in the 80s era of the slasher. I also have seen slasher movies that are definitely misogynistic. The key example I saw recently was Pieces.
Thank you. This really means a lot to hear. If there's anything you'd like to see a video on, feel free to let me know. I don't know how much longer I can do this as everything keeps trending downward, but I'm going to continue trying to make stuff.
@Houndovhell took me some time to come up with something but... think you could do some videos on the psycho series of movies and even a TV show I think 🤔 but I have not come across anyone having done a good job covering them
I say the OG Texas chainsaw can be argued whether or not it's a slasher most of the sequels on the other hand run with the title with pride.... If it's deserved that's another conversation
Yeah that's where I'm at. Personally og tcm isn't a slasher to me, but I can see why people would call it that. Also agreed on the sequels. Thanks for watching!
Great video dude, looks like you put in a lot of work. I'm no expert, but from what i know, Black Christmas probably deserves a little more credit than it gets. I personally don't love it, it's ok, but i know it had a big influence on Carpenter.
Black Christmas gets a lot of love in filmmaking circles, at least ones I've been a part of, but definitely needs more in modern millenial/genz horror circles. It still stands up as a good film today, and as you said was the direct inspiration for Carpenter making Halloween. Thanks for watching!
@@Houndovhellapparently Steve Martin and Elvis love Black Christmas, which is pretty cool. I honestly think I like it more than Halloween, probably because the acting and dialogue are better in that movie and it really gets the creepy winter vibe so right. Halloween is obviously a classic and is more polished in terms of cinematography/shot composition and direction, but I think I am more into the story of Black Christmas
There are so many different kinds of slasher movies that a masked killer and knife certainly aren't the biggest category. Alien is a slasher movie in that there is a lot of folks being offed one by one in pretty much a cat and mouse kind of way. Just replace the ship with a camp, and the alien with a masked man or woman with a knife and you have a slasher. Not all slashers have to be bloody nor have a huge body count. The original Halloween doesn't have that high of a body count. Alien is as sci-fi as any movie revolving around a spaceship and outer space.
Okay, you show a clip of Candyman and yet there's hardly any body count in that movie. I don't look at Candyman as a slasher. It's a fable or ghost story. Not a slasher.
@@Nope2022HugeTheWarningFan To quote yourself; "Not all slashers have to be bloody nor have a huge body count." Seems to me you just enjoy being contrarian. You also said "Alien is as sci-fi as any movie revolving around a spaceship and outer space".. like yeah, that's quite literally how things are defined. That's paramount to saying Schindler's List isn't a ww2 story because that's just when and where it happens to take place. I went to your channel to see your 45 minute mini-doc on the ins and outs of genre definitions in film, and oddly, it doesn't seem to be there currently.
@@HoundovhellYou went to my channel to find no content...? Does that suggest I have no insight, or that you don't care for criticism, nor discussion? Projecting that someone needs their own video and voice on UA-cam is telling me that you don't care about anyone else's opinion. Mentioning Roger Ebert to be correct tells me that you aren't really paying attention, either. All of those movies Ebert blasted for being against women more often than not had a surviving female lead, who was stronger than the masked killer. It's projection to deflect blame. They are just movies which are an art form. They weren't trying to get philosophical. Or maybe they were, but you and Ebert have taken it out of context. Candyman isn't a slasher because it doesn't have the tone nor character. It isn't about a body count. Slashers don't have to have a high body count to be a slasher, no. But they have a villain who's goal is to kill. Candyman's goal is to get people to believe in him. Murder just so happens to be the method when a simple faith fails.
@@Nope2022HugeTheWarningFan Well of course I went to your channel to see what you had to offer. Also, don't really consider your comment to fall under the criticism or discussion category, nor do i consider having a "voice on youtube" a requirement to have an opinion or to voice it. I just think it's fun to see the running trend that people who think they are being "critical" or merely "discussing" things, tend to have very little of themselves available to "critique" or have a "discussion" on. I went into your first comment as if it were a discussion, debating on whether or not to even bother responding as there is a lack of understanding what genre and classification is on your end, and the "discussion" would be moot, given you already believe you're correct in calling Alien a slasher, instead of any of the other genres it could more uniformly fall under, while also for some reason contending the fact that I called it a sci-fi? Regardless, you'll just dig your heels in no matter what. Then I saw that your reply under the comment went back on your previous words when it suited your needs, that of being a contrarian, and realized this wasn't an attempt at having a discussion. I have little time to devote to such things. If this were an actual discussion, it would be interesting. For example: look at Thomas French's comments. That's discussion. Both sides have their views, treat their opposite as an equal, speak them to the best of their abilities, and regardless of if sides shift, an engaging conversation was had. As far as the Roger Ebert thing, yeah. I mention that in the video, and also, if you watched the video, and "paid attention" to use another quote of yours, I said Ebert wasn't wrong. I didn't say he was right. I actually had this discussion with Thomas and he insisted that I didn't need to explain that, but apparently I do. In the same comment thread I also touched on how art is no matter what going to be dissected, and meaning will be derived through a variety of lenses, and what that means for films, the creators, and the viewers. It's like those idiots proclaiming "keep politics out of my video game" while failing to see that politics are forever going to be a part of all art and media, unless you watch something made for toddlers or play games made by leap frog. Sure, sleazy slashers can be just made for fun, but you can still dissect them and examine every choice that was made along the way and ask why that choice was made and come to your own conclusions about them, of course with some evidence to back it up. "Slashers don't have to have a high body count to be a slasher" Agreed. NoES has a body count of 3-4 if you count the mother. That part is there to weed out the movies with zero bodies, or just one kill. Mainly Psycho with its two kills. While pushing forward movies that do have an exceedingly high body count. "They have to have a villain who's goal is to kill" could be said about much more than just slashers. Are werewolf movies now slashers and not creature features? Silver bullet would then fit the bill flawlessly. Is it a single villain or can an entire army be considered slasher villains? It's too vague of a classification, especially in the horror genre. I could argue that Jason's goal is to keep kids off his lawn, therefor is he not a slasher villain? He just doesn't want people on his lake, he's not going into the city next to the lake and looking for people to kill. I do however think that Candyman is a borderline slasher, its use of the slasher formula was pushed to the background in order to tell a much more engaging story with much more sincerity than a normal slasher film would. Still on the fence on whether you're a troll or not. So kudos. I'm still laughing at "Alien is a slasher film, just change everything that makes it Alien and you have a slasher film", that's going in my toolbox of funny jokes.
@@Houndovhell Okay, you don't feel all that sincere to me... Maybe a projection of your actual thoughts into my character...? As Friday the 13th went on, keeping people off the lawn wasn't a prerequisite for Jason any longer. In fact, part 2 has him killing off the final girl from the original, and I didn't notice a cabin, nor the woods. I don't look at Candyman as a slasher due to the nature of what makes the movie tick. You can consider it a slasher, of course. But the tone is just different. Nightmare on Elm Street does have the vibes of a slasher as Freddy is trying to add up a kill count. But I don''t view it as a slasher. Texas Chain Saw Massacre isn't a slasher to me, but it is to many. It's a fable, just like Candyman and Nightmare on Elm St. Schindler's List is more or less about that era, but not particularly WWII. It occurred within those timelines, but it's about the dark underside of something that is already quite dark. War is a very dark subject...does that mean it's horror? That just occurred to me. Is Saving Private Ryan a horror movie because it has similar effects as a horror movie? Or is it the content/context in which the effects are being used. There's so much discussion to be had about these topics. And your right about werewolves and vampires, they would be included, but I never think of them as a slasher. It's the content and context, and tone, that counts. Is Psycho a slasher? I guess so. Is "You're Next" a slasher? I have a hard time categorizing that as a slasher, but many do. Is Suspiria 1977 a giallo? Many consider it as such, but I don't. It's got the murder mystery, but the tone is different. It remains within the school without anyone other than those who live there investigating what is happening, but it's still partially investigative, isn't it? I've heard it referred to as a supernatural horror movie, and not giallo. But then some do consider it a giallo because it was made in Italy. It has similarities to both Argento's giallo fare, and yet a supernatural tone that some suggest gialli don't have. Mentioning Suspiria, would you consider Udo Kier's character giving exposition in that movie? I wouldn't many claim that the "broken minds not broken mirrors" statement is the movie's exposition. I was under the impression that exposition is explaining what is happening in the movie. Udo Kier's dialogue is in exact opposition to the plot of Suspiria, yet he's always cited as the exposition. Bava's Black Sabbath. The telephone short is a ghost story/supernatural if you view the American dubbed version. But in Italian, it's a mystery, without any supernatural events. I suppose any movie with aliens or a spaceship are indeed sci-fi, but that's isn't the reason Alien was made. Nor The Thing. Or Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They were made to horrify. Then again, I don't consider Silence of the Lambs as horror, unlike the majority of horror fans. Now, contrary to what you claim, you seemed to be pretending that if someone doesn't have a video like yours, they aren't worth listening to. And you mention that you don't have any time for my post yet your comments are much longer than my own before this post. So, that suggests just the opposite. I might be considered a contrarian, but that's just where my minds goes and I want to comment. I have many different takes, and consider everyone's opinion. I'll let you know exactly what I think about your opinion, but I am not going to tell you to stop speaking your mind. If that was the impression you got, it wasn't my intent. I was just looking to see if we had anything to talk about. That's the reason for these comment sections. But to suggest you went to my channel looking for my 45 minute video tells me you would rather discount my thoughts rather than to engage with them due to the merits of having content. And just because someone else's threads are more to your liking, that doesn't mean mine should follow suit. I might just have a different way to have a conversation. If you don't like what I have to say, that's fine. But to dismiss my opinion because I lack content as in videos is simply an elitist thought to me. Like when someone doesn't like a certain movie or song, those who do like said movie or song will ask if the person has ever made a movie or produced a song, which seems to suggest that no one can have an opinion if they haven't made content themselves. But do those who like the movie have any experience within that industry themselves? Probably not. It's an easy way to get away from the conversation at hand. But it doesn't work most of the time. I never use that as a tactic to dismiss anyone's thoughts. If I had made content, my thoughts would probably be more objective to you, but they would likely be the same as they are currently, however I could be wrong; with every passing second my mind can change because of the evidence presented. The evidence in here is that you don't care about someone's posts if they don't have any videos on their own channel. Tha'ts somewhat Alienating... Since I don't, I guess you were trying to suggest that I can only be subjective. Then you pretend that you didn't have such an agenda for going to my channel and reporting that you did...? For me, saying someone isn't wrong is implying that they are correct. I've had that discussion many times with people regarding other movies. Like asking someone if Mr. Jones is a good representation of bipolar disorder. Some will say it's really good, whilst others will say it isn't. And those who might say it isn't, that isn't to say that other person's views are incorrect, merely that they aren't accurate. Sounds the same to me. If you told me you think someone isn't wrong, that means in your opinion they aren't incorrect, meaning you agree. Is that called semantics? I know I didn't come here to slap you around nor cause shade. I just wanted to address my opinion and see what was shaking in your minds. Why some consider a movie a certain genre, and others don't. It's an interesting topic. But not so much so as to amuse oneself by dismissing others because you don't like their personality.
Im regard to your opening statement about what makes a slasher, I once heard Jaws 2 referred to as a slasher 😂🫠 I appreciate your choice of core tenets lol
I don't consider Halloween a slasher film.
It is a horror / thriller, but it doesn't focus on the murders specifically.
Halloween is one of the grandparents of the slasher genre, but I think the sequels and the knock offs are the early children of the slasher genre.
I also don't consider Psycho a slasher film, but Psycho II definitely is a slasher.
Its interesting looking at the Siskel n Ebert stuff given our modern age. And just what some Slashers could actually be saying. I mean wasn't there a minor butthurt outrage lately because some study had women saying they would rather be in the woods with a bear over a man? And I think that's just a scientific way of putting some things women have been saying for decades now into a more digestible form. Things about as a man on a date you mostly have to just worry about rejection or looking foolish. For women its worrying if you will be murdered or worse. Slashers are a reflection on society. And sometimes a spotlight on the more odious elements of it intentional or not. Maybe this is why some react poorly to them? Some facts and realities are hard to accept. A few see the badness and want to fix it or at least lament it, others get angry or hardcore Copium abuse on it. (Sometimes slashers are just being skeevy or know most people don't care about some guy getting killed though.)
While I do think that many slashers "hate women" I think the ones I like don't necessarily follow that convention. Well, except for The Burning. When I think of slasher films that hate women, I think of stuff like the New York Ripper, Blood Rage, and even Don't Go in the House. I think as far as treating scared women as spectacle, I think stuff like My Bloody Valentine, and House on Sorority Row feel like they treat women as actual people. I think it just has more to do with lazy writing than anything else. Obviously, falling back on those archetypes could mean that the person has a natural inclination to that, but I am not here to psychoanalyze authors' morals. I think that like anything, it depends on the film, even if there was a general trend.
Yeah, I had a portion of the script that got cut out that went into depth with this segment. The whole "sometimes the curtains are just blue" argument. With depiction of violence towards women in film, there's many different approaches the creators and readers could take. Every choice in writing a script, casting, directing, shooting, and editing has a purpose. Very rarely do you find that it doesn't. Even when someone says "oh we held on that shot for longer because it felt right", you have to question why it felt right to them. Things inspire other things, subconscious decisions, yadda yadda.
A writer could say they wrote the villain that way as an example of the cultural landscape at the time, and that's why the killer seems to relish in the dishing out of violence towards women. Another writer could say he was inspired by other films that did the same thing. A director could just say they really wanted to show off some cool effects they had planned for this kill. Pretty much everything at every step of the process is up in the air, but decisions have to be made, and decisions have to come from somewhere.
After these decisions are made, it is then up to the viewer of the film to interpret their themes and intended messages, and how well they can substantiate their argument. Two people can sit down to watch the same film and come away from it with a vastly different interpretations and emotions regarding the film. The part of this that made it into the final script was where I discussed that if slasher's made one person feel empowered, and another person feel belittled or demeaned, then that's entirely their own.
As far as the Ebert quote. I didn't make it clear enough and I noticed this on my re-encode watchback when I was looking for rendering errors, so I had no way to fix it that didn't result in an extra 8 hours of work re-rendering watching encoding watching. I didn't say Roger Ebert was right about slashers hating women. I was merely saying he wasn't 100% wrong. A lot of slashers were just either following a trend, or could just be interpreted as not favoring women. It's just when we zoom out and view them as a whole that it becomes a lot more problematic and you can start nitpicking and questioning all the little decisions that were most likely made in haste and with no thought to the larger ramifications of their choices.
@@Houndovhell Agree with everything you say. And horror fans have a real beef with Ebert, but they almost never listen to what he is actually saying. Sure he did call for "immoral" films to basically be censored by using monetary incentive, as in don't support violent movies at the box office. However, actually listening to his film criticism in particular, he does tend to give credit for a lot of things that deserve it like his TCM review. And that film is the cream of the crop in the "nihilistic horror", a term I made up to try to describe horror movies he hates. So imagine a competent horror film say like Friday the 13th part 4 not being nearly the same level of quality, how do you think he would respond to it? And this seems to be the common sentiment of most critics at the time. Also, I didn't mean to imply that you agreed, I was just telling how I interpreted the violence in these movies.
Nihilistic is a very good way to describe TCM. That entire movie can be summed up with the shot of Sally screaming as she's driven away at the end of the film. Happy to get away, sad to have endured it, and confused as to not only what happened in its entirety, but why it had to happen at all.
If I remember correctly Ebert did not like the f13 franchise not one bit, so part 4 was probably on the chopping block as he strutted into the theater. I think critics have a different perspective than the average viewer of cinema does. They have to see nearly every film that comes out, sometimes more than once, and also spend at least 1-2 hours writing a well-worded and justified review of all of those films.
When I was doing my extensive research for the Found Footage video I started the first month or two watching found footage films every spare minute that I had. I very quickly noticed that I was becoming agitated at the inherent structure of found footage and was growing tired of how similar and low-effort the less popular entries felt, that when I came across a good one I was still being super negative towards it. I switched away from that viewing routine pretty fast when I picked up on it. I can't imagine what it must have been like to be a movie reviewer between 1980 and 1982 having to watch all those low-effort slashers one after another after another.
@@Houndovhell that’s an interesting anecdote about you not liking the good entries. That’s honestly why I recommend skipping to Friday part 4, but I thought that people would still not like it, as I thought it wasn’t necessarily that it was “the same story all over again” but for another reason. I thought They just blamed it on being the same thing due to not knowing what they didn’t like. But I guess that it is also due to experiencing similar films constantly which can make you even dislike the good examples. I just wanted to say “what do you mean the same thing as the other films? You didn’t watch those.” Although, if they liked the formula, it wouldn’t be too bad, but then they would treat it as all of the movies are on the same level.
Also I never meant to call F13 nihilistic, but that Roger Ebert saw it as nihilistic. Sometimes when I see his Friday the 13th reviews I think “did we watch the same movie?” Even if I could squint to kind of get at what he means.
What do you mean me not liking the good entries? If it's the found footage thing, I was mainly talking about movies that either at the end of the watch, or after the fact, that I would consider to be good entries, and how watching all the bad ones leading up to and surrounding it soured my initial reception to it. I just noticed a lot of negativity coming from the bad ones that it seeped into my viewing experience of the good ones. Realistically there's only so many times I can see shaky cam of a forest with college kids running around yelling at nothing before my brain pulls a Scanners.
But that's an interesting to think about. If someone had never seen a slasher and they started with part 4, how would it affect their perception of it. I grew up watching f13 from part 3 onward for the longest time as my mom didn't like the first two. When I did finally watch the first two, they were underwhelming, but I could still enjoy them for what they were and what they brought to the table.
Generally it's very hard to treat a film as its own thing. Everything is relative, and that's why I try to keep those two sides, films and movies, separate. I wouldn't compare a film like Friday the 13th part 6 to Akira Kurosawa's entire filmography, for example. They're in completely different leagues and I can find good things in both of them.
The Toolbox Murders and Alice Sweet Alice are two more 70's proto (pre - Hallloween & Friday) slashers not mentioned here that I'd add.
Great video but what about “Alice sweet Alice”? To me that’s the first slasher as it also covers all of the topics discussed
I think that came after Black Christmas
I look at all the final girls and notice just how diverse this genre is not 😂
Great video and well researched. Intelligent perspective. Just a friendly heads up..
"Giallo" when pronounced correctly, should rhyme with "Shallow". Not the commonly mispronounced, "gee-allow" .
Thanks again for a great video!
Definitely dating myself here but Friday the 13th was my 1st big screen horror flick thanks to my Mom and good old Betsy Palmer snookering her into thinking it was something it wasn't 😂. 1st time checking out the channel. Great review imo.
Nothing wrong with being "old"er! I'm very happy that my viewer base is consistently between the ages of 25 and 55. It lets me know I don't have to attempt the retention editing that genZ and younger prefer, as that's a style that grates on my senses pretty quickly. So I enjoy that people who view my channel are more aligned with my taste in style and pace, even though I do my best to get to the point and keep it visually interesting.
I actually saw the remake of Friday the 13th in theaters with my mom. But that's because she's a huge fan of the series. Still, always love the anecdote of having to see the "your breasts have perfect nipple placement, babe" scene with my mom sitting right next to me in a crowded theater.
Thanks for watching!
@Houndovhell The Friday the 13th 2009 was the last packed theater I've seen. Had a blast from the past that night. The first 15 minutes was golden!!!
@@peytonhibdon7659 Absolutely. The cold open to the remake is highly condensed slasher fun.
nice, horror and slashers were my entry into cinema.
Thanks! They were mine, too. I'd binge all the big slashers with my mom all the time. Kind of ingrained in my childhood. Then later I started venturing out after I saw The Shining and grew a taste for cinema as a whole thanks to that. The last horror film that really did something for me, off the top of my head, was Hereditary I think. I love horror, but all the recent films I've been hooked on are Drama style films like Painting of a Girl on Fire or Good Time. Horror has kind of just become my popcorn filler go-to, instead of where I go for pleasing the filmmaking side of my brain.
Thanks again for watching!
Even though, I'm not a slasher film fan, I do have slasher films that I like. Even though I get frustrated at slasher films that are "so bad, they're good" because they are most likely boring, I do like a well executed horror film. I think that's because I have seen enough movies, books, comics, etc. that I realize that nothing is original, so the lack of originality in the genre does not really bother me. And slasher films can often be effective or at least interesting stories with the genre. Which is kind of why I get frustrated when people call bad or mediocre movies "good slasher films." Like are we saying that Sleepaway Camp and My Bloody Valentine are in the same league? C'mon slasher fans, we really need separate the good slashers from the bad ones. I know Sleepaway Camp's ending is iconic, but are we really saying it's a good movie? I feel like the bad reputation of slasher can slightly be hurt even more with mediocre films being more popular than the good ones.
Although, I think the genre is far more broad as I think it involves pretty much a horror of any kind that centers around a human killer and has a body count. So even if TCM does not "feel" like a slasher film, I would say it is. Last House on the Left is borderline a slasher, but I think it does not fit, as it is not the primary horror, and we sort of relish in the deaths of the villains of the movie. Obviously I understand that when we think of slashers, those don't immediately come to mind, but I the genre is limited enough even if we include those, so why not. Also I think that the secondary requirements are pretty much all worthless with genre classification, but that's just me.
Yeah I ended my anthology video with the quote that embodies that Horror fans already know that most of their movies are bad. I think Slasher fans are even more aware. A lot of the people I know that like Slashers the most, don't really care about qualities attributed to cinema. They talk for hours about gore and kill effects, which final girl is better, this killer vs that killer, a lot of things that don't interest me. I'm much more interested in the filmmaking process and what makes a good shot, how a movie's script is paced, and so on. At the end of the day, what really matters is that movies are supposed to be entertaining. Slasher fans aren't really saying they're good films, more that they're good movies.
Original Texas Chainsaw Massacre mainly doesn't feel like a slasher because after the initial leatherface kills, there's more than one killer and it turns into several other genre's blended together, making it hard to classify. Exploitation, proto-torture porn, cannibals, hillbilly horror. All of which take up more screen-time than the parts that could be called a slasher. Which is why I mentioned that leatherface fits the mold of a slasher villain, but that the film doesn't. It has too much going on for it to be reduced down to just a slasher. And the Secondaries that I mentioned are kind of what made the generic slasher formula, so they were important to quantify and discuss. They're all things that, in one form or another, became prevalent within the genre. Not every film has to hit them every time, but they help discern the difference between closely-related films.
@@Houndovhell I guess I just feel that horror films aren't given enough credit. Sometimes "bad horror films" like Killer Klowns from Outer Space, are just gory comedies and aren't actually bad movies.
Slashers are interesting, because I think a decent amount of them, like the ones you mentioned as highlights are actually solid films. Not masterpieces, but I think that if you recommended them to a normal horror fan, they would probably enjoy it. So when people treat certain films that aren't good the same level as those that are, it can be confusing, because you don't know if it is a hidden gem like My Bloody Valentine, or a trash film like Blood Rage (I find Blood Rage really boring).
I think that is why I like 1981-1983 period where they tried to make effective horror movies that were in the genre, before it became all about the kills. It feels weird to want more from my slashers, but there's slasher films I love, and it feels strange to treat other entries in the genre differently. Obviously this is all subjective at the end of the day, and if you legitimately enjoy something because it's good, or just enjoy it ironically, good for you. But for me personally, I would just love for more people to take the genre seriously I guess.
As for TCM, I can see your point, even if I disagree.
When I said in my video "i can see where someone would be lenient", TCM was the chief example in my mind. It's damn close to being a slasher for me.
I agree that horror doesn't get enough credit. It feels like a monumental success anytime we see a horror film at the oscars, and yet cinema nerds who are also horror fans know that the ones getting the nods aren't the best of the year in most cases. It's gotta be like animation fans seeing disney/pixar up for awards every year. I hate the oscars/awards ritual, but that's an unsightly and lengthy tangent in and of itself.
I agree that slashers aren't masterpieces, but are good films. I have to explain to people that my brain works in two shifts. Analytical pretentious film buff mode, and brain shut off enjoy wacky movie mode. My favorite subgenre of horror is werewolf films. Not a single werewolf film can sit above a 7.5(mayyybe an 8 if I'm feeling generous)/10 for me. I love them to death, but they're not good like how the works of Tarantino, Kubrick, or Tarkovsky are good. Another fun tangent is how arbitrary ratings systems are.
Funny you mention Killer Klowns, that's one of my favorites for that part of my brain that just wants fun colors and cheap thrills.
@@Houndovhell yeah most of these films that I think are good are 7-8 out of 10s. I don’t think I’ve seen a 10/10 horror film that’s a slasher aside from the debatable TCM, although I would probably give Nightmare on Elm Street a 9/10. Although most of them I’ve seen are like 6/10 at best, and that’s if I’m entertained but not caring about any of the characters. I’m actually trying to create a list on Letterboxd that has slasher recommendations for normal horror fans (>7/10 or important to the genre). Unfortunately, I haven’t seen some of the more well regarded ones like The Funhouse or a lot of stuff from after Scream to now.
I don’t really ever turn off my brain, but maybe I’m more lenient on decent films than others are. I pretty much go like “does it work?” and it either does or doesn’t. If it works, then I give it a 5.5 or higher. I’m very much “is it good?” As that’s all I really care about. If it is bad, I won’t like it unless it’s Plan 9 from Outer Space or The Room. I don’t really have a preference as I tend to be pretty open minded to different genres.
@@thomasffrench3639 I have all kinds of different considerations. Camera work. Great. Script. Great. Acting. Great. But none of that needs to be considered if I really enjoy the movie for what it is. And critics aren't going to take away my passion for anything. Sure, I will listen to what Ebert had to say, but I don't agree with him at all. He's one of those who televised the city name of a Friday the 13th actress because he was angry that she would stoop to the level of making one of these movies. Yet he claims that Halloween and The Devil's Rejects are so great. I admit, I love Halloween 1978. I also enjoy Devil's Rejects. But I would never want to dox someone for any decision they have made. I think it might have been Siskel who doxxed the actress...?
As for what number I would use. Camera work can dictate it, as well as acting. But if I just love the movie for what it is, I will actually add three points over the line.
13/10 Friday the 13th 1-4&6
13/10 Sleepaway Camp
13/10 Halloween 1978/Ends
13/10 My Bloody Valentine 1981
13/10 Nope
13/10 Pan's Labyrinth
13/10 Let the Right One In
13/10 An American Werewolf in London
13/10 Silence of the Lambs
Or...
5/10 Blood Rage
7.5/10 Friday the 13th Part V A New Beginning
1/10 Body Melt
4/10 When Evil Lurks
8/10 Sleepaway Camp 2
7/10 Sleepaway Camp 3
??/10 Nekromantiks 1&1
??/10 Blood Diner
Back when I was in high school...
2/10 Dead Alive
6/10 Texas Chain Saw Massacre
3/10 The Evil Dead
Today...
7.5/10 Dead Alive
13/10 TCM
13/10 The Evil Dead
As time goes on, so does my thoughts regarding these categories. I'm still not sure where to place Silence of the Lambs when it comes to genre. For the last few decades I have always wondered why horror mags have features Lambs and Lector as horror icons, because to me that's a thriller. Godzilla also get lumped into the horror genre by many. Myself? I don't.
You really could count
Frankenstein
The Mummy
The Invisible Man
Has slashers has they have some basic tropes
Heheh, Freddy Kruger was one of my earliest sexual fantasies. Glad you mentioned he was a sexual character, not many mention this aspect of him. (Also just gotta object to your inclusion of New Nightmare in the 90's section of the 3 big ones. That one is a solid masterpiece, apart from some bad effects.)
"Heineken!? F**k that sh*t! PABST--BLUE--RIBBON!!!"
I've told this story a million times.
i'm a 90's kid. My grandpa was a huge movie buff and had a massive VHS and BETA collection.
So around 1997, I started to get into his movie collection more. Watching all these classic movies I hadn't seen already.
Before this I grew up on Gremlins, Critters, Ticks, Serial mom, Who framed Roger rabbit, The rocketeer, all the movies that came out during the 90's that were big, for kids, and a couple 90's horror movies. The leprechaun movies, Child's play 1-3, Face/off, Alien 3, Alien: Resurrection, Terminator 2, Jacob's ladder, Halloween, etc.
Wasn't till around 1997 that I discovered Critters 2, the Friday and Elm street franchise, CHUD, The prowler, CHUD, The terminator, Robocop 1 and 2, Pet Semetary, Alien and Aliens, Predator 2, Class of Nuke'em high, Killer klowns from outerspace, etc going through my grandfather's video collection. By the time Star Ship troopers came out in 1997, my grandfather was like "You need to see this movie, you'll like it."
As a horror fan and music fan...the late 90's and 2000's were just not a good time for me; teen pop, reality TV, horror becoming mainstream, the death of MTV, the Post scream movies, PG13, found footage, the Saw franchise. When Rob Zombie came out with House of 1000 corpses, I as a horror fan was like "YES! I haven't been completely and totally ignored as a horror fan! Somebody is still looking out for me! A turn to the old stuff!!!! I hope this influences the rest of the movies...." of course that DIDN'T happen.
Scream 4 is still my favorite Scream sequel, despite the flaws. I remember when they came out always feeling disappointed. By the late 90's; horror becoming mainstream. Losing it's edges and exploitation roots. The "I know what you did last summer" franchise and all the other films after that - by this time I was a Scream hater. I hated Scream. I blamed Scream for all the problems with modern horror, etc. "Scream RUINED horror" it wasn't till like 2008 when I decided "just watch Scream on it's own merits." and loved it and I still love it.
Since Scream 4, there has been a lot of people revisiting their criticism of the movie. A lot saying "Scream 4 was ahead of it's time."
There is a video about this where they basically say "in the 2000's slashers were not in the mainstream. Nobody cared about them. There was no great 'I miss the Scream franchise.' It was all about Found footage, paranormal, and Saw movies." and therefor Scream 4 which came out in 2011 was not really in a place where it would get the appreciate and love and respect it deserves. It still doesn't exist for the majority of Scream fans. There seems to be 2-3 types of Scream fans.
1.There has never been a bad Scream movie.
2.Scream 1 and 4 are the best movies in the franchise.
3.Scream 1, 5, and 6; because they are the newly released movies.
Well, here is the thing. Not only did I hate the trend of the 2000's and the mainstreaming of horror in the 2000's. Not only did I find a new love and appreciate for Scream, 3 years before Scream 4 came out; which got me excited and pumped up to watch it. I saw in theaters.
But due to better and easier access to the internet in the 2000's, I was able to find even more movies from the 70's and 80's that I didn't even know about. Was able to find all the slasher movies from the 80's golden age; Prom night, Bloody birthday, My bloody Valentine, Terror train, Silent night deadly night, Silent night bloody night, Black Christmas, The initiation, Funeral home, Mortuary, Butcher baker nightmare maker, Frightmare. I also discovered the giallo genre and italian horror in general. I had watched a Bravo special about 100 scariest moments in horror and 100 scariest horror movies and they talked about Dario Argento and Mario Bava and my reaction was "I can't wait to find these movies!!!" so I immediately went on my computer and started doing research and I began to find copies of all the movies. Bravo would air these specials multiple times in a single day, for several days. So I actually took a piece of paper and pencil and I'd watch the special again and having memorized it, I knew when to start writing and I took several notes. Not just the movie but the directors. Then I came across other 70's and 80's classics.
So for 2 decades [2000's and 2010's]....I watched about 96% of nothing but movies from the 70's and 80's movies, with my favorite 90's films thrown in, and maybe 2, 3, 4 modern movies thrown in. Like May, Ginger snaps, Let the right one in. Very very few. So basically, instead of the mainstream going ahead and watching what ever trends and movies in the mainstream. By the late 90's and 2000's, I was playing catch up with the older generation from the 70's and 80's. I'd give maybe 3 modern movies a chance but I'd be picky every year or so, largely picked due to word of mouth, and the rest I saw in theaters with my mom. I did try and give more 2020 movies a rwatch and give a few more 2010 movies a watch. More so then usual but ya, not a lot of it I've liked. I've been more expanding my 20's, 30's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's movies more then I did before. Kind of gave up on modern cinema again,lol. I gave it 2 years; I watched around 8-10 modern movies in 2022 and 2023 including Scream 5 and 6. Didn't like the majority of them. In fact hate a lot of them. Like Terrifier 2.
So ya, that's my story in relation to horror and slasher movies.
In 2009, a metal band wrote a song bashing modern horror movies. I might as well of written the song and it 100% fits my thoughts about the genre then and now.
"What happened to the films of yesterday
The 70's and 80's were the golden age
Horror films now are a f**king joke!
They make me choke!
Gone is the blood, gone are the t*t$
Gone is everything that we f**king miss!
MTV sh*t is shoved down our throats!
The film makers of today give us no f**king hope!"
"PG-13 horror is packing the seats
This generation sucks! "
"The hip hop influence, infecting the culture
Busta Rhymes and Michael Myers?! This sh*t is f**king torture!"
"Lack of ideas, regression through technology
Will Peter Jackson save us? No we get that lame ass trilogy!"
By the way, again, I'm a 90's kid. I am 36 years old. So even as a 13, 14, 15 year old kid I had these opinions.
All through out the 2000's I was confused and going "What the hell is happening?! Everything has changed. Horror movies suck now!!!"
Woodstock 1999, MTV interviewed an attendee.
Attendee: I'm sick of the backstreet boys on MTV live. I'm f**king sick of it. You know?
MTV: Don't hold back on me...
Attendee: I'm not holding back, I hate that sh*t.
THAT WAS ME. I WAS THAT GUY.
To quote one of the MTV guys talking about MTV in 1999 and the 2000's
"What happened was...teen pop."
"They were MAD AT US because we TOOK THEIR MTV AWAY AND GAVE IT TO THEIR LITTLE SISTER."
That 100% expresses me exact feelings about culture, about the music in the 2000's, and horror movies in the 2000's.
I was sick and tired of NON STOP CONSTANTLY hearing Britney Spears and NYSC and The backstreet boys, and then hip hop. I mean it was all over TV, all over the radio, seeing people listening to it in public, and now it's in my horror movies?!?!
As everyone has admitted "They don't make movies for ME anymore."
"Movies must appeal to EVERYBODY." Sorry, but I'm a 90'd kid and back then, movies DID NOT APPEAL TO EVERYBODY. They appealed to a specific demographic.
I can just go on and on and on. Movies of today are all about concept and commentary, meta, and questioning everything. Nothing can just be for art's sake anymore.
98% of all the movies I watch today have to lecture me, treat me like an idiot; that I just "can't understand subtexts", gone is all subtly and "the art comes first, the commentary comes second.", etc.Scream 5 and 6, part of the problem among many other problems is.....Scream is suppose to be a commentary on modern horror. Problem is......there really IS NONE. There is no clever commentary to do with horror, that a Scream movie can use as it's plot and so forth. Plus the boring characters and boring wooden acting. During the "meta commentary' about prequels and all of that. it all felt far too forced, far too "I don't buy a single word they are saying." and really "prequel" that is the commentary?! And then "toxic fandoms" REALLY?! That is what you got for meta commentary?! No awesome lines like "You forgot the first role a remake Jill, Don't F**K WITH THE ORIGINAL." I can just go on and on and on. I despise the color grading and shot on digital. I 100% agree with Tarantino when it comes to shot on film vs digital. I hate digital. "I feel cheated when I notice it's been shot on digital or it's being projected on digital." me too. I f**king HATE, HATE, HATE this blue lighting and blue tint in modern films. I can't STAND IT. Terrifier 2 is a major offender; overly lit, lots of ugly blue lighting, every character is wearing blue, an ugly bluish tint over everything. Even the chain link fence at the school has this bluish look to it. Then you add in the contrast between all of that and white backgrounds, the white floor, etc....it's just horrendous. Makes it almost impossible for me to even look at the screen, it's so unappealing. Scream 5 and 6 and a ton of other movies; outside scenes. Day light scenes look terrible. They look blurred and overly exposed and lit. Ruining the environments. Terrible ugly lighting. Shot on digital is the bane of my existence. I HATE, HATE, HATE shot on digital. Then you add in bland boring characters and "no film can stand on it's own anymore. Everything has to do be part of a trilogy." ruining film. Again, I can just go on and on and on and on.
That Frightmare album is sick, I wish they made more stuff. Bloodfreak is cool too but I really liked Frightmare's song structures
@@NebulaMortis06 I never got into Bloodfreak. Frightmare is still pretty damn good. Nice to see another metal fan,lol.
By the way, in case you didnt know.Frightmare is the title of a really good British slasher movie. I recommend it.
Slasher is my favorite sub genre
TCM 1,2,3 and 4 arent Slasher, but Remake,Prequel to the remake,2013 and Netflix one are
The leatherface one is not a Slasher is a CW remake of Devils reject
Can Final Destination and Ju-on be considered Slashers?
I agree with that. I wish I had more time to make the video, cause that would have been an interesting tangent to go down. And I think Final Destination fits the slasher mold better than Ju-on. Ju-on is basically a ghost movie, but Final Destination has a body count, mystery killer, and it revolves entirely around surviving and our main protagonist. If we're looking for J-Horror that fits, I'd argue Pulse and The Ring are closer, though they're too paranormal, which could also be a strike against Final Destination as well.
@@Houndovhell I say Ju-on is more than Ringu, because Kayako is basically showing up everytime to kill someone
Coffin joe had a anthology tv series called "Beyond from beyond to beyond" from 1968 one episodes was abbout a "pastel"(i dont know how to translate this) that killed woman with Big butt, saddly this episode and the entire series are lost
The name of the series sounds like it would have been up my alley. I keep telling my friend to name her next game "name 2: the first one" as a joke, but also because it makes sense since the first one was kind of a prequel to the actual planned events. So it fits, but is also funny at the same time.
@@Houndovhell saddly The serie was on a Tv station that a few years later was bought by a teleevangelist that destroyed everything they made before,we only have a few stories because Coffin Joe and his main writer(R F Lucchetti, rip 06\04\2024) adapted some to Books and comics
I always thought Texas Chainsaw Massacre was not a slasher.
That just didn't feel right.
I would also add that the slasher needs to be a humanoid. A bear isn't a slasher, but it could tick all the boxes.
You remind me of the guy from Technology Connections. I like that guy.
Yooo sick vid man this channel deserves more subs
Thank you so much! Glad you enjoyed the video(:
OMG I can't agree more about slasher films!
Unfortunately it’s not the most popular anymore
2nd popular, paranormal possession is 1st spot, unfortunately
The Rob Zombie Halloween , The Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm St isnt that bad. The Actors were just shit in the Nightmare one.
Could have sworn I replied to this one, but was inside a store so maybe dodgy internet interfered. But I agree! I still can watch the Rob Zombie Halloweens more times, and happily so, than I can the David Gordon Green ones. F13TH remake is maybe top 3 jason for me? and I agree that the acting for NoES remake definitely dragged it down the most out of all the issues I personally had with it. I think even my second biggest gripe, the way Freddy is portrayed, is more of a personal opinion, and not at all rooted in objectivity.
Thanks for watching! (:
nice video bro!
I was with you all the way until you just casually skipped over Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, a perfect love poem to the classics and a fitting headstone to commemorate a great endpoint to the entire genre. 0/10.
,,, Okay, not really. Great work! But you should give BTM a chance if you haven't. Keep em comin!
Its mentioned in this video and has a bigger portion in my found footage video! Love the movie
Edit: or at least it should be in this video, was a hectic process. I’ll double check when I’m back in front of a computer
@@Houndovhell You did mention it in this vid, in a flood of a few others. I was mostly just giving you crap. Great vid, keep up the good work!
I gotta ask why you think many of the movies hate women? 9/10 times the main protagonist is a female, who through outsmarting, or increasing her knowledge of her attacker, or even in some kind of martial Or even guerrilla style tactics. Yes it may be dolled up for the screen but any way you look at it, typically the woman stands victorious over her male assailant. And most of the time any male companion, in a close relationship or otherwise, are all killed off due to their own hubris, stupidity, or self sacrifice. Men are portrayed as ignorant, drunk, horney, immature, and dismissive of most females in distress. Painting with a VERY wide brush here, of course it's a trend rather than a simple equation. But I'd say men are treated just as bad as any woman who is not the "final girl" or main protagonist, if not worse in many cases. How many male protagonists from horror who don't die, and act like a reasonable adult male? Now, how many women from horror, slashers of course, can you name? And how much more popular is she than her closest male cohort? Laurie Strode Halloween, Nancy Nightmare on Elm St, Ripley Alien. In those 3 films alone you have the top 3 modern horror protagonists more well known than any man in similar roles. So i must respectfully disagree. All the best.
I think it’s mostly a mixed bag. Sure the female heroes are strong, but there’s also dumb girls who are “sexy” and a lot of women in these films are sexualized in their deaths which is a bit questionable. I don’t think “hate women” is the issue, it’s more that it’s not really the most progressive, at least in the 80s era of the slasher. I also have seen slasher movies that are definitely misogynistic. The key example I saw recently was Pieces.
@@thomasffrench3639 i can see that. I just didn't get that from this video.
Always here for a 45 minute slasher breakdown 😂
Thanks for watching! If I could have made it 3 hours I would have, to be honest. So much got left out.
I really appreciate your videos thank you
Thank you. This really means a lot to hear. If there's anything you'd like to see a video on, feel free to let me know. I don't know how much longer I can do this as everything keeps trending downward, but I'm going to continue trying to make stuff.
@Houndovhell took me some time to come up with something but... think you could do some videos on the psycho series of movies and even a TV show I think 🤔 but I have not come across anyone having done a good job covering them
I say the OG Texas chainsaw can be argued whether or not it's a slasher most of the sequels on the other hand run with the title with pride.... If it's deserved that's another conversation
Yeah that's where I'm at. Personally og tcm isn't a slasher to me, but I can see why people would call it that. Also agreed on the sequels. Thanks for watching!
Thank you I agree with you 100% first time viewer and enjoy the video
Glad you found the channel and are enjoying it. Thanks for watching!
i would much prefer some giant bug movies but it feels like this is all we get
Thanks for watching! I feel the same way but with werewolf films. Need some of these new mid-budget films to be about werewolves instead.
Great video dude, looks like you put in a lot of work.
I'm no expert, but from what i know, Black Christmas probably deserves a little more credit than it gets. I personally don't love it, it's ok, but i know it had a big influence on Carpenter.
Black Christmas gets a lot of love in filmmaking circles, at least ones I've been a part of, but definitely needs more in modern millenial/genz horror circles. It still stands up as a good film today, and as you said was the direct inspiration for Carpenter making Halloween. Thanks for watching!
@@Houndovhellapparently Steve Martin and Elvis love Black Christmas, which is pretty cool. I honestly think I like it more than Halloween, probably because the acting and dialogue are better in that movie and it really gets the creepy winter vibe so right. Halloween is obviously a classic and is more polished in terms of cinematography/shot composition and direction, but I think I am more into the story of Black Christmas
I love sleazy slashers 😂
They aren’t good slashers if they’re not at least a little sleazy. Thanks for watching(:
Let's have a slasher movie date night? 😅
There are so many different kinds of slasher movies that a masked killer and knife certainly aren't the biggest category. Alien is a slasher movie in that there is a lot of folks being offed one by one in pretty much a cat and mouse kind of way. Just replace the ship with a camp, and the alien with a masked man or woman with a knife and you have a slasher. Not all slashers have to be bloody nor have a huge body count. The original Halloween doesn't have that high of a body count.
Alien is as sci-fi as any movie revolving around a spaceship and outer space.
Okay, you show a clip of Candyman and yet there's hardly any body count in that movie. I don't look at Candyman as a slasher. It's a fable or ghost story. Not a slasher.
@@Nope2022HugeTheWarningFan To quote yourself; "Not all slashers have to be bloody nor have a huge body count." Seems to me you just enjoy being contrarian.
You also said "Alien is as sci-fi as any movie revolving around a spaceship and outer space".. like yeah, that's quite literally how things are defined. That's paramount to saying Schindler's List isn't a ww2 story because that's just when and where it happens to take place.
I went to your channel to see your 45 minute mini-doc on the ins and outs of genre definitions in film, and oddly, it doesn't seem to be there currently.
@@HoundovhellYou went to my channel to find no content...? Does that suggest I have no insight, or that you don't care for criticism, nor discussion? Projecting that someone needs their own video and voice on UA-cam is telling me that you don't care about anyone else's opinion.
Mentioning Roger Ebert to be correct tells me that you aren't really paying attention, either. All of those movies Ebert blasted for being against women more often than not had a surviving female lead, who was stronger than the masked killer. It's projection to deflect blame. They are just movies which are an art form. They weren't trying to get philosophical. Or maybe they were, but you and Ebert have taken it out of context.
Candyman isn't a slasher because it doesn't have the tone nor character. It isn't about a body count. Slashers don't have to have a high body count to be a slasher, no. But they have a villain who's goal is to kill. Candyman's goal is to get people to believe in him. Murder just so happens to be the method when a simple faith fails.
@@Nope2022HugeTheWarningFan Well of course I went to your channel to see what you had to offer. Also, don't really consider your comment to fall under the criticism or discussion category, nor do i consider having a "voice on youtube" a requirement to have an opinion or to voice it. I just think it's fun to see the running trend that people who think they are being "critical" or merely "discussing" things, tend to have very little of themselves available to "critique" or have a "discussion" on.
I went into your first comment as if it were a discussion, debating on whether or not to even bother responding as there is a lack of understanding what genre and classification is on your end, and the "discussion" would be moot, given you already believe you're correct in calling Alien a slasher, instead of any of the other genres it could more uniformly fall under, while also for some reason contending the fact that I called it a sci-fi? Regardless, you'll just dig your heels in no matter what.
Then I saw that your reply under the comment went back on your previous words when it suited your needs, that of being a contrarian, and realized this wasn't an attempt at having a discussion. I have little time to devote to such things. If this were an actual discussion, it would be interesting.
For example: look at Thomas French's comments. That's discussion. Both sides have their views, treat their opposite as an equal, speak them to the best of their abilities, and regardless of if sides shift, an engaging conversation was had.
As far as the Roger Ebert thing, yeah. I mention that in the video, and also, if you watched the video, and "paid attention" to use another quote of yours, I said Ebert wasn't wrong. I didn't say he was right. I actually had this discussion with Thomas and he insisted that I didn't need to explain that, but apparently I do.
In the same comment thread I also touched on how art is no matter what going to be dissected, and meaning will be derived through a variety of lenses, and what that means for films, the creators, and the viewers. It's like those idiots proclaiming "keep politics out of my video game" while failing to see that politics are forever going to be a part of all art and media, unless you watch something made for toddlers or play games made by leap frog. Sure, sleazy slashers can be just made for fun, but you can still dissect them and examine every choice that was made along the way and ask why that choice was made and come to your own conclusions about them, of course with some evidence to back it up.
"Slashers don't have to have a high body count to be a slasher" Agreed. NoES has a body count of 3-4 if you count the mother. That part is there to weed out the movies with zero bodies, or just one kill. Mainly Psycho with its two kills. While pushing forward movies that do have an exceedingly high body count.
"They have to have a villain who's goal is to kill" could be said about much more than just slashers. Are werewolf movies now slashers and not creature features? Silver bullet would then fit the bill flawlessly. Is it a single villain or can an entire army be considered slasher villains? It's too vague of a classification, especially in the horror genre. I could argue that Jason's goal is to keep kids off his lawn, therefor is he not a slasher villain? He just doesn't want people on his lake, he's not going into the city next to the lake and looking for people to kill.
I do however think that Candyman is a borderline slasher, its use of the slasher formula was pushed to the background in order to tell a much more engaging story with much more sincerity than a normal slasher film would.
Still on the fence on whether you're a troll or not. So kudos. I'm still laughing at "Alien is a slasher film, just change everything that makes it Alien and you have a slasher film", that's going in my toolbox of funny jokes.
@@Houndovhell Okay, you don't feel all that sincere to me... Maybe a projection of your actual thoughts into my character...?
As Friday the 13th went on, keeping people off the lawn wasn't a prerequisite for Jason any longer. In fact, part 2 has him killing off the final girl from the original, and I didn't notice a cabin, nor the woods.
I don't look at Candyman as a slasher due to the nature of what makes the movie tick. You can consider it a slasher, of course. But the tone is just different. Nightmare on Elm Street does have the vibes of a slasher as Freddy is trying to add up a kill count. But I don''t view it as a slasher. Texas Chain Saw Massacre isn't a slasher to me, but it is to many. It's a fable, just like Candyman and Nightmare on Elm St.
Schindler's List is more or less about that era, but not particularly WWII. It occurred within those timelines, but it's about the dark underside of something that is already quite dark. War is a very dark subject...does that mean it's horror? That just occurred to me. Is Saving Private Ryan a horror movie because it has similar effects as a horror movie? Or is it the content/context in which the effects are being used. There's so much discussion to be had about these topics.
And your right about werewolves and vampires, they would be included, but I never think of them as a slasher. It's the content and context, and tone, that counts. Is Psycho a slasher? I guess so. Is "You're Next" a slasher? I have a hard time categorizing that as a slasher, but many do. Is Suspiria 1977 a giallo? Many consider it as such, but I don't. It's got the murder mystery, but the tone is different. It remains within the school without anyone other than those who live there investigating what is happening, but it's still partially investigative, isn't it? I've heard it referred to as a supernatural horror movie, and not giallo. But then some do consider it a giallo because it was made in Italy. It has similarities to both Argento's giallo fare, and yet a supernatural tone that some suggest gialli don't have. Mentioning Suspiria, would you consider Udo Kier's character giving exposition in that movie? I wouldn't many claim that the "broken minds not broken mirrors" statement is the movie's exposition. I was under the impression that exposition is explaining what is happening in the movie. Udo Kier's dialogue is in exact opposition to the plot of Suspiria, yet he's always cited as the exposition.
Bava's Black Sabbath. The telephone short is a ghost story/supernatural if you view the American dubbed version. But in Italian, it's a mystery, without any supernatural events.
I suppose any movie with aliens or a spaceship are indeed sci-fi, but that's isn't the reason Alien was made. Nor The Thing. Or Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They were made to horrify. Then again, I don't consider Silence of the Lambs as horror, unlike the majority of horror fans.
Now, contrary to what you claim, you seemed to be pretending that if someone doesn't have a video like yours, they aren't worth listening to. And you mention that you don't have any time for my post yet your comments are much longer than my own before this post. So, that suggests just the opposite.
I might be considered a contrarian, but that's just where my minds goes and I want to comment. I have many different takes, and consider everyone's opinion. I'll let you know exactly what I think about your opinion, but I am not going to tell you to stop speaking your mind. If that was the impression you got, it wasn't my intent. I was just looking to see if we had anything to talk about. That's the reason for these comment sections. But to suggest you went to my channel looking for my 45 minute video tells me you would rather discount my thoughts rather than to engage with them due to the merits of having content. And just because someone else's threads are more to your liking, that doesn't mean mine should follow suit. I might just have a different way to have a conversation. If you don't like what I have to say, that's fine. But to dismiss my opinion because I lack content as in videos is simply an elitist thought to me. Like when someone doesn't like a certain movie or song, those who do like said movie or song will ask if the person has ever made a movie or produced a song, which seems to suggest that no one can have an opinion if they haven't made content themselves. But do those who like the movie have any experience within that industry themselves? Probably not. It's an easy way to get away from the conversation at hand. But it doesn't work most of the time. I never use that as a tactic to dismiss anyone's thoughts.
If I had made content, my thoughts would probably be more objective to you, but they would likely be the same as they are currently, however I could be wrong; with every passing second my mind can change because of the evidence presented. The evidence in here is that you don't care about someone's posts if they don't have any videos on their own channel. Tha'ts somewhat Alienating... Since I don't, I guess you were trying to suggest that I can only be subjective. Then you pretend that you didn't have such an agenda for going to my channel and reporting that you did...?
For me, saying someone isn't wrong is implying that they are correct. I've had that discussion many times with people regarding other movies. Like asking someone if Mr. Jones is a good representation of bipolar disorder. Some will say it's really good, whilst others will say it isn't. And those who might say it isn't, that isn't to say that other person's views are incorrect, merely that they aren't accurate. Sounds the same to me. If you told me you think someone isn't wrong, that means in your opinion they aren't incorrect, meaning you agree. Is that called semantics?
I know I didn't come here to slap you around nor cause shade. I just wanted to address my opinion and see what was shaking in your minds. Why some consider a movie a certain genre, and others don't. It's an interesting topic. But not so much so as to amuse oneself by dismissing others because you don't like their personality.
Psycho wasn’t the first film to start the slasher horror movie genre actually there was a movie produced one year prior called peeping Tom I believe
He mentioned that in the video lol
Im regard to your opening statement about what makes a slasher, I once heard Jaws 2 referred to as a slasher 😂🫠 I appreciate your choice of core tenets lol