Talk:Splatter film/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Splatter film. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Expansion

I just tried to expand the article a little bit. Let me know if you think I got anything wrong. User:YellowTapedR 20:45, 25 February 2007

Hostel

I think hostel is a splatter film.

a couple of slightly gory scenes does not make something a splatter film. compare with Braindead (1992 film), a true splatter film. Zzzzz 20:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What's This?

This statement is off-base: "Scenes of splatter can also appear in films of other genres, some examples are Michele Soavi's Cemetery Man (Dellamorte Dellamore, 1994) and Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill (2003)."

While Cemetery Man may not be a splatter film, this statement seems silly. The movie is a zombie film, after all, and those films typically have plenty of blood in them.--------

Torture porn - sources

It redirects here so... There has been a big article on it following on from Grindhouses release (has it gone mainstream? That kinfd of thing) [1] and some feedback from notable people [2]. Might come in handy for expanding the entry. (Emperor 14:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

blood feast v night of the living dead

latest edits have tried to downplay bloodfeast and "up-play" night of the living dead: this is incorrect because (a) bloodfeast was in COLOUR - it was COLOUR that made the genre viable because of its depiction of blood. NOTLD was in BLACK&WHITE so the few scenes of zombies munching flesh could not have much impact. (b) bloodfeast is ALL ABOUT THE GORE. its wall-to-wall gore. NOTLD's gore scenes comprise maybe 2 mins of the final film. worth a mention, but barely a splatter film. 82.2.59.101 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The latest edits by myself were made from John McCarty's Splatter Films, pub by St. Martin's Press. As the article states, Blood Feast's appearance was important historically, but its impact on the history of the genre was blunted by the fact that so few people saw it when it came out (only playing in drive-ins in the south in its first couple years of existence). It only became a cult hit years later, in retrospect. Pop films like Bonnie and Clyde (film) and The Wild Bunch had a far greater role in acclimating mainstream audiences to unflinching carnage than Blood Feast ever did. Ford MF 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, but the fact is that Blood Feast is considered the first splatter film. While it may have not influenced cinema as a whole like The Wild Bunch did, it did influence the people who went on to bring splatter into the mainstream. As for calling Night of the Living Dead a "splatter film" in the article, I think that's incorrect, though it's clearly worth mentioning since it was an influence on probably ever splatter film ever made.—Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowTapedR (talk • contribs)

The article asserts that Blood Feast is considered the first. As far as labeling "Night of the Living Dead" a "splatter" film, I'm okay with it, largely because an entire chapter is devoted to the movie in the aforementioned Splatter Films, a history of the genre. Ford MF 05:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll concede with you on that first point, but McCarty's book is not the be-all-and-end-all on the subject. In fact, it has been panned for its lack of grasp on the subject. I agree that Night of the Living Dead should be mentioned in the article because it made way for higher-grossing gore films, but it is clearly not a splatter film by any stretch. If the MPAA viewed it today, it'd likely be slapped with a PG-13 rating. But I'm not about to change it if I'm alone on this. YellowTapedR 08:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, of course it's not the be-all-end-all. But it is a reputable source in a genre that has very few, so I feel inclined to weight its arguments accordingly, viewing the genre's development as a process, rather than a set of criteria to check off to determine whether or not a movie is "true splatter" (a faintly ridiculous term I've seen used on this talk page). I also appreciate its historical approach to the genre of gore. Things like Herschell Gordon Lewis' movies are indeed groundbreaking, but there's a limit to the impact they can practically be said to have had, since very, very few people (in a very limited geographical area) actually saw them on release. Ford MF 14:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, "panned" by whom? Ford MF 14:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out again that the very word splatter (as a genre of cinema) was invented by George Romero to describe his "living dead" movies. Ford MF 14:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so we have this clear, I'm not a huge Herschell Gordon Lewis fan or anything; I'd take Night of the Living Dead over any of his films any day. So, I'm not biased. I don't have any problems with the article, except one, really. The only concern I have is labeling NOTLD a splatter film because it's inaccurate. George Romero did invent that term, but he did it in reference to Dawn of the Dead.

On another note, I've heard some people say that chambara films are conisdered a subgenre of the splatter genre. I'm not sure about this, but maybe it should be included? YellowTapedR 16:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a big problem, as with any genre article, is defining the boundaries of the genre. I've never heard "splatter" applied to chambara, but I don't see why not. Extreme or forward-thinking gore in any time period qualifies, I think. Giallo is another one that crosses over heavily. Likewise, some of the stuff like Cannibal Holocaust (which is in the article) I think leans more heavily towards exploitation than splatter, despite its gore level. But again, I think drawing sharp lines including or excluding stuff is never a very good way to go with any film article. Genres don't really work like that.

Also I'm not even exactly all fired up to get people to consider "Night of the Living Dead" the archetypal splatter movie. I do think it's a pivotal moment in the history of the genre. Before that, the list of popular movies that actually show people EATING HUMAN BEINGS stands at exactly zero. Splatter is contextual, I think. Stuff that freaks audiences out on one day might barely yield a bored yawn on another. Today's splatter is tomorrow's tame silliness, you know? Ford MF 16:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I guess I would define a splatter film as one that dwells in the physical effects of violence. Most of them, I'd say, are just vehicles to show off gory special effects, but that's the point. YellowTapedR 08:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

While I generally agree with you, I think that kinda limits the genre, since what it's basically saying is "it's not real splatter unless there's no real plot or actual characters." Like, if a movie's actually good, then it must be something other than splatter, which is not something I'd like to encourage. Ford MF 16:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Torture Porn pic

Although I personally think Rejects is a much better film than Hostel I don't think that roadkill shot is really representative of the genre that much. If no one has any problems, I'll try finding a shot from the Saw or Hostel films which probably focus more on the torture aspect.--CyberGhostface 13:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright I found a picture from Hostel: Part II which I think better demonstrates the genre than the roadkill one. Also, I removed the bit about rape as although its been used in a couple of films I don't think its become the norm yet.--CyberGhostface 13:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I'd caution against using Wikipedia as a vehicle for original research and presenting your own opinions, the David Edelstein article referenced in the statement mentions rape in the context of Gaspar Noé’s Irréversible and not a part of "torture porn", so I agree that it should be removed. dissolve ^talk 15:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who put the Devil's Rejects photo in the section. I only picked that one because I thought it was appropriate given the article is about gore films, and that was a pretty gory scene. I think the new pic does represent the issue the section discusses better though. --YellowTapedR 04:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it can be placed elsewhere on the article? The torture porn section might be big enough for two.--CyberGhostface 17:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I think the Hostel: Part II pic works. And putting another pic up would just get the Fair Use Police riled up. --YellowTapedR 20:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Hostel: Part II pic works great. You may want to attach a more detailed Fair use rationale so that it doesn't get deleted though. dissolve ^talk

Strangeland

i have found no reliable source that this film is considered "torture porn" or the neologism "proto-turture porn", please refrain from edit warring unless you can provide a reliable source. I appreciate any good faith edits to improve the article, but Verifiability and No original research are fundamental Wikipedia policies. dissolve ^talk 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the uncited reference to torture porn, but I think the film merits inclusion in the article as a splatter film. dissolve ^talk 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the paragraph about Strangeland. I can't think of any reason why the film, which is arguably not even splatter, merits having its own paragraph, when much more notable splatter films don't. --YellowTapedR 03:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are scores of films before Strangeland that pre-date the so-called torture porn genre, like Misery, Last House on Dead End Street and Snuff. There is absolutely nothing groundbreaking about Strangeland and no reason to give it its own section. --YellowTapedR 21:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I gave the inclusion the benefit of the doubt as I hadn't seen it since it came out and couldn't really remember how much of a splatter component it had, but I have found no reliable sources classifying it as a splatter film or influential in any way on "torture porn". I further agree that much more influential films deserve a paragraph while Strangeland certainly doesn't. Films that pre-date "torture porn" might make an interesting section if it's not original research. dissolve ^talk 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a good section. I've found some links suggesting that the early Hellraiser films are precursors to so-called torture porn. --YellowTapedR 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Ray Huston in his review of Nightmare USA: The Untold Story of the Exploitation Independents by Stephen Thrower, seems to suggest that the book traces some of the roots of "torture porn" to 1970s low budget expolitation/horror films. That book, if any editor has access to it, might make a good source. dissolve ^talk 21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Would the review itself count as a source?--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Fail

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

After reviewing this article, I have come across several critical issues with this article:

Referencing is the most obvious problem, especially since much of the unreferenced material is potentially controversial or reads like original research; here are just some examples:
"As a result, not only are the characters fragmented, so is the audience." (Characteristics) This sounds like classic original research without a citation

The last two paragraphs of "Prehistory of splatter" are unreferenced, including statements that are apparentely cuts from direct quotes.

There's a citation needed tag under "The modern era", and many other untagged facts in that section require citations, such as the third paragraph
In addition to the statement lacking citation above, the "Characteristics" section reads more like a critical essay than an encyclopedic entry on the subject of splatter films. It consists mainly of two direct quotes, which should be summarized rather than directly quoted, from one individual who is qualified only as a "film critic." There's no assertion made of why this one individual has the right to tell us about splatter films moreso than any other film critic. As such, the whole section reads as if it were one man's opinion.
The prose flows awkwardly, but it might just be because of the one-two sentence paragraphs breaking it up; I can't tell at this point. It seems like the article is written more in the style of an essay than an encyclopedic article, but it's hard to tell. The first thing that should be done to improve the problem is to merge all one-two sentence paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone, then I would have a better idea.
I don't see much of a point in the "Selected splatter film directors" as it seems a bit subjective as to who is included (and at worst has the potential to be abused), could be more properly formatted as a work of prose, and contributes little to the article as a whole (last part's just my opinion I suppose).
The lead seems to be lacking a bit per WP:LEAD's requirements — remember that every major point/heading made in the body of the article should be summarized in the lead.

These are just the biggest problems with the article and there are other, less consequential issues as well (the use of contractions such as "don't", the use of "however" to begin a sentence etc). Since I feel that the above issues are significant enough and that the article would benefit from careful revision and perhaps an untrained eye before it could be a Good Article, I am failing the article at this time. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 00:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny Games

I've removed Funny Games from the list of modern "torture porn" films. Michael Haneke, the director of Funny Games (both the American and German versions), has stated that his intention was that no one should stay in the theater until the end of the movie, that he couldn't possibly understand why anyone would do that. The whole purpose of the film is to shame the audience. If the purpose is to shock rather than entertain how can it be considered part of this genre? Here is a link to the first part of the interview- http://youtube.com/watch?v=c2U9kcpepoo&feature=related KHorberg (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, he wants people to leave??

But yeah, I agree. Its not a "torture porn" film by any means.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I had added the film based on the Steve Murray AP article from July 2007 that lumped it into the sub-genre. I certainly don't object to the removal if it's not accurate. dissolve ^talk 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Whedon quote

I have removed the quote by Joss Whedon stating "torture porn" is "part of a cycle of violence and misogyny that takes something away from the people who have seen it", since the full quote (found here http://www.whedon.info/Joss-Whedon-attacked-Could-critics.html) actually refers to the ad campaign for the film Captivity, and has nothing to do with the film itself, nor 'torture porn' in general. Davidor7 (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Given this source, I support the removal. It looks like the National Post piece[3] took his comment out of context. dissolve ^talk 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)