Jump to content

Talk:Slasher film/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Difference of slasher and splatter

I don't think slasher and splatter films are the same thing. Whereas slashers focus on serial killers, massacres and teenagers, splatter films depict extensive violence and gore. For example Carpenter's Halloween is a slasher, but not a splatter, since it is not especially violent or gory. Peter Jackson's Bad Taste isn't a slasher, since the plot does not revolve around teenagers, young adults, serial killers and it isn't really a horror movie at all, but more like a gory action comedy. Some films may be both slashers and splatters, but slashers aren't the same thing as splatters.

splatter horror is not slasher horror.... unless "splatter" means "slasher" in some languages. Niz 00:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree, splatter films are definitely a seperate sub-genre. "Splatter film" definitely shouldn't redirect here. alpha5099 22:26, 20 July 2005 (EST)
ok the change is made - see new article splatter film Niz 17:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Hostel, SAW, Jeepers Creepers

Someone recently removed the line about the 90s-early00s revival of the slasher genre ending with The Ring, citing that Hostel, Saw, and Jeepers Creepers are still around.

However, Hostel and SAW aren't slasher films (they're torture films, a recent offset of the splatter genre that couldn't exist without the MPAA's recent "anything goes as long as there's no boobies" policy) and Jeepers Creepers 1 and 2 would be considered straight horror movies (groups banding together against an unnatural force that's picking them off, like a zombie/ghost/monster/virus movie). Slasher films are definitively and exclusively about a psychotic, singular (although sometimes represented by multiple people), [at least] semi-human character who is hunting down and killing characters in often-times brutal ways.

-Asriel 18:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

i agree with asreil people should learn the difrence between the difrent groups of horror movies.

Is this featured-article ready now? Its well-written, informative, has good links... maybe missing some references?

OK, but it should still have advanced beyond Start-Class. Mike1981 14:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

my contributions

none of my findings has been original research nor has it been unverified. All of what i've added has come from reading comments and descriptions found on a variety of websites such as Hysteria Lives, Diabolical Dominon, Terror Trap, Slashpool, badmovieplanet, www.feoamante.com etc etc. Plus books or magazines such as Empire's guide to horror/sci-fi/crime to Total Film and guide to horror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCOCSOOCSOSC (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Jeepers Creepers 1+2

I concur, on your findings, Jeepers Creepers 1+2 seems to fit in with Slasher connections subdivision. It may have elements or a formula similar to a slasher movie...but isn't specifically a slasher (reviewers at websites have often mistaken horror movies as slasher when they are not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCOCSOOCSOSC (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Codes and Conventions within the Slasher genre response

My contrabutions to the articles hopefully do meet up to quality standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCOCSOOCSOSC (talk • contribs) 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Codes and Conventions within the Slasher genre response

Please don't remove what i've contrabuted —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCOCSOOCSOSC (talk • contribs) 21:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Black christmas movie poster.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees image

Wrong Turn... any connection with TCSM?

Is there a reason why "Wrong Turn" is credited in the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" chapter under "Notable slashers"? I agree that they have several similarities, but it's not a remake and hasn't given anything new to the genre then I fail to see any connection between them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.183.203 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Good observation. I removed it. Thanks for letting us know.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Edited section about Sleepaway Camp

I edited the passage about sleepaway camp. While most of the descriptions of the various Slasher flicks are subjective, I couldn't let it say that SC has "one of the creepiest atmospheres in the entire genre." Subjectively not, because it is ridiculous. Objectively not, because any fanboy could say this about any film. Secondly, I removed the line about the ending "which has been hailed as one of the scariest movie scenes ever." Once again, I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.184.151.62 (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Halloween2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

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

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"He tortures victims that take life for granite and causes lots of controversy amoung his victims." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.11.63 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The person who added that clearly didn't know how to write. I fixed it up. Thanks for bringing it up here.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Rape Revenge Film

I think the section on the early 70's is inconsistent. From what I've read, Last House On The Left is not a slasher, it's a rape revenge film. I believe it is not considered a slasher b/c it predates Halloween and doesn't make use of the 'stalker' cam nor the slasher 'formula'. I was curious what other thought of this. Sugarcoma (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a source for the statement that rape revenge films are a genre of slasher films, the book Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film. Parts of that book can be read by locating it on http://books.google.com. If after you look at that book you feel it was wrongly cited, then bring that up here and we can discuss getting rid of the rape revenge part of this article. Bigpindahouse (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Going to Pieces but that is only one theorist. I haven't read it but I don't think it's wrongly cited. I think that there is quite a bit of critical debate as to how to define the slasher or even horror in general. For instance, Dika rather strictly defines the sub-genre in her book Games of Terror where as Carol Clover in her book Men, Women and Chainsaws has a looser definition, including films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and it's sequels. In Peter Hutchings book The Horror Film he considers the films following the success of Halloween critically different than films prior (such as TCM ). Personally, I consider the rape revenge film distinct from the slasher b/c it has to include an instance of rape. Violence in the slasher is frequently erotized but rape is rare if ever present in the slasher. Some consider one of the main troupes of the slasher is the sexual repression, in both the killer and the Final Girl. Some critics seem to think that the slasher film is synonamous with any of the films made in the 70's or early 80's or were influenced by them. I tend to disagree. I think there is over lap and sometimes blurry distinctions about what is an is not a slasher (the TCM franchise being an example, the Nightmare On Elm Street franchise being an other) I think the inclusion of certain elements, rape being one, clearly distinguish the rape revenge film from the slasher. So to sum it up, when speaking about the slasher and deciding what is and isn't a slasher film we need to consider what our critical criteria is, which this article, so far, hasn't clearly done. This could be as broad enough to include the rape revenge film or it could be narrower. I'm personally for narrowing it but if we are to broaden it then perhaps we should reformulate the article to be more geare towards 70's horror. Sugarcoma (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

changes to list

User:63.156.76.59 added a lot of good entries to the list (such as the early and now almost forgotten "Black Christmas") but also accidentally broke a lot of existing links by adding "The ... Series". I've restored the broken links and added back some of the more important entries from the list. Others, I wasn't so sure if they were significant entries, or actual "slasher" films (rather than non-slasher splatter/horror films). I am unlikely to have been right about all those decisions, so feel free to check the list yourself and restore any important ones I skipped. Also, I think .59 had a good idea about noting which movies became series, though I think that rather than break wikilinks we could just append notes about "followed by three sequels", "followed by six sequels", etc. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

some removed, some added... if you add one please state why its notable Niz 00:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I really don't think "Psycho" falls under the category of a slasher film. I'd consider more of a psychological horror film, as only two people are killed throughout it's duration.

Psycho mostly is not considered a slasher perse but the cinematic technique used in the shower scene was extended by Carpenter across all of Halloween. Given Halloween's succes, others sought to capitalize and used a similar technique. It's sort of become a troupe of the sub-genre that is incorporated to a greater (Friday the 13th) or lesser degree (Nightmare On Elm Street). It's not the defining characteristic but it is one element that distinguises it as a slasher (though at this point, the technique is used outside the horror genre itself). Sugarcoma (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

slasher make up

tracing the fatherhood of the various slashers' staples, I think that:

  • The Texas Chainsaw Massacre introduced the Final Girl (Sally Hardesty/Marilyn Burns), the trope of youngsters in a secluded place and the masked killer with a sharp weapon (Leatherface)
  • Halloween introduced the four-phased canvas (initial murder, introducing phase, slaughter phase, final fight phase and last fright), the periodically recurring shock for the audience and the unstoppable, superhuman killer (Michael Myers)
  • 'Italian gialli, such as Twitch of the Death Nerve, introduced the progressive murders, particularly when two characters are having sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.59.152.10 (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a good start. I was considering restructuring stuff the article so that the development of the slasher is clearer. Pyscho --> TCM/giallos --> Halloween --> Friday the 13th ---> genre is born. Other considerations in regards to the development was the financial impact of Halloween and Friday the 13th in the generation of the genre. Paramount saw how much money Halloween made in ratioi to it's budget and purchased Friday the 13th for a substatial sum. Also the repealing of the Hays code and the introduction of the MPAA rating system also had an influence. Sugarcoma (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
You have done a very good work. The restructured page is clearer.

Formula and Typical Elements Section

This section is mildly incoherent and doesn't cite any sources. My vote is to remove it unless some citations get added soon. Any objections? Sugarcoma (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I think there are no incoherences. No one of the arguments of this section contradicts another. Second, there's no need for citations: if you see any splasher movie, you do see all the forementioned features. I can draw a list with all the movies showing those characteristics.
Slasher movies have a canvas which is more or less the same (optional events are between parentheses): This makes little sense to me. The text doesn't get much better from there. Further more, read the Verifiability article. This section needs citations.Sugarcoma (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
In this table I put all my field research about slasher movies. I hope this table should scientifically confirm my theories and "original researches" about slashers' formula.


Of every film I saw I reported if there we could find one of the particular moments of which an horror movie is composed, which are:
  • a creepy prologue where anybody is killed by the villain, or befalls anything of weird, disturbing or threatening that forecasts the future horrors we'll see in the movie
  • a period where victims are summarily portrayed, maybe in order to give they some human characterization in front of an inhuman killer
  • one bad omen, or more series of omina, that announce the clash with the villain while characters are presented, remembering the audience the future murders and driving they toward the butchery.
  • the optional presence of an uncredited forewarner: a survivor of killer's attack, or a kind of prophet, who tries to warn, or only menaces, the future victims (or only the audience) about the befalling danger; but the future victims don't trust in him for various reasons (the menace is too absurd to seem true, or too generic to be useful, or he miss them for a second, or they don't understand etc.). His futile attempt only increases the thrilling atmosphere.
  • in some films, instead of the prophet, there's another creepy character: a helper of the villains, who gives the future victims wrong informations about their trip (or doesn't give right informations), so letting them fall into villains' trap. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) has both a drunk "storyteller" (at the beginning of the movie) and a false informant the Old Man, who says there was no gas in station, causing the main characters to remain in the place of their future murder. In my table the latter isn't reported.
  • in some movies, victim are killed progressively (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Urban Legend, Happy Birthday to Me, Prom Night etc.); in other films, one or two minor characters are killed early, then follows omina and finally the murderer closer attacks the remaining main characters (Wrong Turn, Halloween [1978], Halloween 2, etc.); but it is difficult to say wether we face a single great attack or an intensification of murders (as in Scream, My Bloody Valentine or Friday the 13th [1980]).
  • a span of time where the villain (or the villains) launch his/their main attack dispatching all but the final girl. Usually this butchery is performed when the young characters have reached a secluded location, or are in a place where nobody can quickly help them.
  • almost ever the final girl tries to flee the villain, and/or to fight against him, almost ever with success.
  • many times, during her escape, the last survivor lead into the gory bodies of preceding victims, in a true gallery of horrors shown in order to scare the audience.
  • during her flight, or after having killed the murderer, the final girl is sometime able to deliver one of his friends, or a precedent victim in some way retained by the villain; sometimes is the final girl herself saved: by a character left for dead but only wounded, by a miraculous relief, by a reluctant killer's accomplice, etc.
  • almost ever the murderer suddenly revives after being left for dead, and again attacks his last victim; if not, there is another way to give the audience a final fright, such as a false alarm caused by an unaware character.
  • the end of a slasher is often unhappy: the survivor character becomes affected with madness and/or killer is still alive; if the murderer is actually death, there's anybody circulating who was connected with villain and, moreover, who can eventually continue his bloodbaths (a son, a brother, a parent, an accomplice, a clone etc.)

Sometimes the last fright and thecreepy end do coincide.

I found that not all movies necessarily has all this staples, but all movies have at least three or four of these staples.
When a box is empty, I don't see the movie or I don't remember. When in a box is written only YES, I don't remember details or describing them was too long. Let's trust me!
Please review the Verifiability page again and pay special attention to the information about sourcing. Wikipedia isn't the place for original reseach. I deleted your table because it was poorly formatted and incohrerent. Sugarcoma (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable Films

The notable films section of this article is enormous. It should include ones largely considered essential parts of the slasher sub-genre not just ones some people like or ones you personally enjoy. If people have proof that these movies are really notable, post references to works saying so. Please do this soon so we can work on making the list smaller. Bigpindahouse (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm considering either cutting it down or folding it into sections prior. I don't see the list doing anything particularly important.Sugarcoma (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the notable films section. I took what I felt was important and folded it into the various developmental stages of the sub-genre. My reasoning for is that this article is about the sub-genre as a whole. It's not meant to be repository of plot run downs and fandom for various films in the sub-genre. Notable films that are included should have a reason for being included.Sugarcoma (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Turn wrong mentioned

Let me start with a quote:

In 2005, horror director Eli Roth would make an even more gruesome film following the success of Saw, which was Hostel (2005), which influenced other films like Turistas and Captivity. The films following the successful style of Saw and Hostel would become known as torture porn. These include films like Wrong Turn (2003) which was followed by Wrong Turn 2, a direct to video sequel, and Wolf Creek (2005)

First of all, it's sufficient to look at the dates to see my point, How could "Wrong Turn" "follow the succesful style of Saw and Hostel" if it was released a year before 'Saw' and two years before 'Hostel'?

Secondly, 'Wrong Turn' is by no means "a torture porn", it rather follows the classic tradition of horror.

Thirdly, I doubt if 'Wrong Turn' is a slasher at all since it does not meet most criteria suggested by Vera Dika (and the opening paragraph).

My suggestion is either to remove any mentions of 'Wrong Turn' from the article or reconsider its importance for the genre and connections to other films. Zhenevsky (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen wrong turn so I don't have an opinion one way or the other. However, Dika's formula is by no means definitive of the genre. It was here attempt to define it critically. Dika's book was written in the early 80's and only considers a very limited set of films. Sugarcoma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

Sam from Trick R Treat being an "icon"

While, frankly, the entire list of horror icons could be considered original research, I don't think there would be much argument and it wouldn't be hard to source characters such as Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers as being iconic slasher 'antiheroes'. However, there's no way at this point that Sam could be considered to be up there with Freddy and co. The public at large doesn't even know about Trick r Treat, whereas the others are all household names that have long since permeated popular culture. If anything, Jigsaw from the Saw films has proven himself to be an icon in popular culture, if not as himself, then through his puppet.--24.147.231.200 (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-slasher films added to the list

I don't believe Hellraiser can really be classed as a "slasher film". A "splatter film" at best, but while there are figures of menace in Hellraiser none of them really fit the "slasher" mold. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

list now only includes "notable" films Niz 00:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They Are Notable Films. Hellraiser is, You're all wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.60.7 (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hellraiser is NOT a slasher film. Look at the victimisation, the modus operandi, the villain. Though the rules of the slasher are paradigmatic and a film can get away with not using/changing one or two, this is a horror-of-demonic film, not a slasher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.172.146 (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"The "Slasher" film in its prime" needs work but not to be deleted

The section discussing the "Slasher film in its prime" was recently deleted by a user who was not signed in. I reverted the edit. I'm not sure their intention in deleting the section, or if it was discussed on WP anywhere before it was done. However, the section should not be removed because it leaves a gapping hole in the flow of the article. Otherwise the article goes from "Early Slashers" and then straight to "Decline and direct-to-video." You see how this causes a logical and pacing problem for the article? However, I do see how the "in its Prime" section is currently lacking. It seems to feature too much original research and is debateable just how encyclopedic it is. But in this case it only needs work and sources. A section detailing the Slasher film's rise and box office draw in the 1980s really is needed for this article; and it's especially needed if the "Early" and "Decline" section remain here. Danleary25 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Slasher film/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this article is not ready for GA status at this time because of sourcing problems. There are requests for citations, and whole sections which are not sourced at all (for instance, "Early slashers" and "The slasher film in its prime"). This is a subject about which a fair amount has been written, and so we'd need to see references to decent, published works; magazine and newspaper articles, published books and academic journals. A lot of the sources cited are very good and entirely appropriate, but there are issues with some of them; primary sources, such as personal websites of directors, should probably be avoided. It's also not clear to me why siskelandebert.org should be considered reliable. There are other issues which should be addressed before this is ready for GA status:

  • The lead is far too short, and it'd be great if we could get a (free) image to lead the article.
  • The article currently uses a lot of non-free content; ideally, we want as little as possible. Only non-free images which add significantly to the article, and without which the article would be seriously lacking, are permitted. Detailed, specific rationales are required for each usage of non-free content; these are lacking in many cases here.
  • Avoid "the" in section titles
  • "The 1970s were arguably the Golden Age for exploitation films" Weasel words. It just comes across as trying to make up for the fact that no source is cited.
  • "their use of their often low budgets" Very odd phrase
  • Avoid very short paragraphs; they can damage flow.
  • "is widely considered the first proper slasher film" Again, weasel words
  • "It was not until the huge box office success of" A good example of how the tone does not feel appropriate in places. We're trying to write a dispassionate and neutral encyclopedia article, while this reads more like a general interest magazine article on slasher films.
  • "The slasher film in its prime" is not a good section title
  • "The genre arguably peaked in 1983" Weaselly
  • "Notable non-US slashers are Cut from Australia, Cold Prey from Norway, Gutterballs from Canada, Anatomy from Germany and the French titles Haute Tension and Them." It has not been made clear until this point that we're talking about an American phenomenon. In any case, I don't think it would be fair to say that slasher is a uniquely American genre.
  • "The definition of a slasher film varies depending on who you ask" Weaselly, inappropriate tone.
  • I'm concerned about possible copyright/plagiarism issues with the Vera Dika list. Has this been copied word-for-word?
  • "Other common characteristics include: ..." This is all unsourced.
  • The "Controversy and critical analysis" section could/should be expanded considerably
  • "The TV writer and producer Liz Friedman graduated from Wesleyan University with a degree in sociology and her thesis was entitled "A Feminist and Class-based Analysis of Slasher Films".[20]" So what?
  • "In the 1990s, the horror genre was almost dead. Audiences and critics were getting very tired of the same, typical teen slasher films." Again with the tone
  • "Scream kicked off a new slasher cycle" Ditto

My primary concern is the lack of sourcing. Because this is a big and significant topic, I'd recommend dealing with my suggestions (focussing on finding and using decent sources, and removing those things that you cannot cite to a decent source) before sending this to peer review; suggestions there should set you in good stead for a good article candidacy. You may also be able to find others willing to help out at the film WikiProject. I hope this review has been helpful, and I hope this does not discourage you from working on this article. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Peeping Tom

I'd query the statement The genre has its origins in the early 1960s: Michael Powell's Peeping Tom (1960). I think Peeping Tom fails as a Slasher pic on various counts.

  • The killer doesn't stalk his victims
  • The killer doesn't wear a mask
  • The killer doesn't have to overcome victims that fight back
  • Not all of the victims are "away from adult supervision"
  • There haven't been any sequels

SteveCrook 00:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're interpreting that literally, Hitchcock's Psycho also misses on more counts than it matches. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read Adam Rockoff's excellent book on the slasher, he notes that the origins of the subgenre are multifarious - Peeping Tom is a forerunner to the slasher in some ways, but it perhaps owes more to Psycho (the first true horror of personality film) or TCM. I think the article needs to acknowledge the problems of defining the slasher's origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.172.146 (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Early heavy metal bands were influenced by the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix, but that doesn't make Hendrix or the Beatles metal. Similarly, Psycho and Peeping Tom are influential on slasher films, although they aren't themselves slashers. Dementia13 (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not the texas chain saw massacre?

why wasn't the 1974 texas chainsaw massacre included on the "notable slasher film" list? It is a classic, so I've added it on there. Jackp 05:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Classic most definetly, but is it really a slasher? I'd personally say not.AKLR (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The slasher itself is difficult to define. Some critics and theorists include the TCM films in the sub-genre (Carol Clover being one proponent), others do not (Dika, Hucthings, Pinedo). My opinion is that TCM is not a slasher but was highly influential on the slasher sub-genre in that it popularized the troupe of the meddling teenagers poking around where they don't belong (and getting killed for it). Again it depends on what criteria you define the slasher by. I don't consider it a slasher b/c it doesn't make use of the Hitchcockian 'shower scene' film technique, which Carpenter extended across all of Halloween. Most slasher generally make use of this (to a greater or lesser degree) stalking camera technique. My vote is include it as an influence but not as a slasher film itself. Sugarcoma (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hard to define? The slasher might be one of the most strictly defined subgenres not only in horror film, but in the entire art world. TCM doesn't follow a slasher film structure. It's indisputably a classic, but it's not a slasher. Wild Strawberries is a classic, why not put it here as well? Dementia13 (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Scream: straight or parody?

Wasn't the Scream (movie) series a "straight" imitator rather than a parody ? Jay 08:46, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Scream a parody exactly, but it does play with it's awareness of what kind of movie it is (Tatum: "Don't kill me, Mr. Ghostface killer, I want to be in sequel."), and depart from those conventions sometimes for humorous or dramatic effect: e.g. Sydney doesn't remain chaste. More of a deconstruction, perhaps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.216.42 (talk) 10:57, 01 October 2004 (UTC)


I think "extensively deconstructed" (in article) is overstating it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by George Kaplan (talk • contribs) 11:11, 11 October 2004 (UTC)
changed to "successfuly deconstructed" then Niz 00:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the article is prejudiced

The article is prejudiced, and has a pretty judgemental begining, including some other parts in the middle. I suggest thats it would be best if someone with a little indepth knowledge of the topic edit it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.15.44 (talk) 10:22, 01 September 2006 (UTC)

pop culture

How about an influence on pop culture section? I am thinking of references to slasher films in Juno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.21.34 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate those sections. It just becomes a scatterboard for people to list "Hey, Freddy appeared in this episode of family guy!" or "Hey, Snoop Dogg referenced Leatherface!"--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Trivia sections are discouraged per Wikipedia guidelines, for that very reason. Dementia13 (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

I tagged this article for the criticism section. There are two problems with it: first, there's no discussion of any criticism, it simply mentions that the genre has been criticized, but gives little mention of what the specific criticisms were. Secondly, it's an NPOV problem. Some critics have accused the genre of misogyny because of its violence against women (while ignoring its violence against men), but others have praised it as feminist, because of the "final girl" who survives with little or no help from authority figures or her parents or boyfriend. This criticism section only includes negative criticism, and it includes none of the praise even though proponents such as Carol Clover are named. Dementia13 (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


"The genre has been for using misogynistic tropes and employing gratuitous violence against female characters".

This claim is completely ridiculous. People complaining that violent movies are violent against women (???). I think this should be deleted, if wikipedia doesn't want to become a place for radical feminist non-sense.

Nickgaz (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That this criticism has been made, by mainstream film critics, is a fact and should be mentioned in the article. Making a judgment call on this is not really Wikipedia's concern.--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

slasher villains?

Should a new article be created that deals with listing slasher villains and anti-heroes (possibly in order of popularity) or as a new section on this article? I think we need a list of slashers we can see at a glance, in order of popularity, rather than fishing through the article to find them. Any ideas?--Jacob.husted (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

1978's Halloween

Halloween is the first 1978 slasher film, right? Then why is the year sub-sected to the film and not vice-versa? It's very odd to me.--שי אביגד (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Descent is not a slasher film.

At all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C100:B9D5:6003:6339:E272:9E35 (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Blumhouse Productions synopsises?

It seems an undue amount of detail is given to several Blumhouse Productions movies on this page, promoting them as "box office successes" which is a hell of a stretch and devoting a lot of words to describing their production. I notice the main editor of those sections also happens to have made edits to a couple of other Blumhouse Productions movie pages too. It all seems a bit corporate-promotiony to me and may need looking into by someone who knows what they're doing. 212.50.186.5 (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Tone.

Maybe when I have a little more free time, I can get around to it myself, but strung throughout the entire article are random phrases about certain films seem highly subjective. ("New Year's Evil attempted to sugarcoat its misogynistic undertones", "Another low-budget slasher released in 1980 was The Unseen, which was notably less exploitative but still lured audiences with the promise of beautiful women in peril" just to name a couple) If someone wants to get to it before I do, I think we can make this article a little less "slashers are misogynistic films where only women are targets" and a little more factual. -LoveLaced (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Phantasm is a slasher !

Where the movie Phantasm is ?! --77.207.75.83 (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Not a slasher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.247.72 (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Has anyone recently checked the sources on here? Are you allowed to use articles like "Collider" on here? Because I thought it was only scholarly sources.


Kyway54 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Real Life Events

Also, can there be added real life events or problems that have happened in certain movies? Like for example A Nightmare On Elm Street?


Kyway54 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slasher_film/Archive_1&oldid=1070528501"