Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror/Notable horror films

Remakes, etc.?

I'm not sure remakes should be included. Frankenstein, Dracula, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and a number of other movies on the list have had multiple adaptations which would greatly increase the size of this list - and many of those adaptations are not very notable (or good). Or perhaps the definition of remake should be narrowed to a remake of a specific film, rather than a new adaptation of a written work?

I think I'm OK with including an entire series, although some series are fairly sizeable (Universal, Hammer). But including series does mean some really awful movies will make the list, though, like The Birds II. Also, I don't know if we've decided whether series should have their own articles, or if sequels should be added to the entry for the first movie and then split off when large, or if they should each be created as their own article? Шизомби 17:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have a point. I was really thinking about actual film series, e.g. Nightmare on Elm Street. While most of the movies in a series are generally not that good, I think that the flagship film pulls the series after it, and it is usefull and encyclopedic to have articles on all films in a series. Once they get to the article on the notable film in the series, people will likely want to find out something about the other films in the series. Moreover, these series do not have that many films (I would say 4-5 films average).

The classic larger than life characters like Dracula or Frankenstein are clearly something else. There are clearly to many movies and clearly most of them do not deserve coverage. However, all films related to Dracula can not be considered one series, nor can they be considered remakes of one original film. In this respect, as a rule of thumb, we could consider films as being part of the same series when they are/can be numbered (e.g. Gremlins 1, 2...) or be called smtg like 'Return of ...'. In this vene, true remakes would be only the ones who follow resonably close the original film, with a highly similar plot, attempting to offer mainly a different directoral approach to the same film (e.g. the recent remake of The Hills Have Eyes). Finally, judgement should obviously exercised on each particular case.

Anyway, as you are right about these problems that I didn't see and I don't have a clear solution, if you have a specific proposition, please go ahead.

Leaving this aside, do you think that the list is ready to be moved as a subpage of the horror wikiproject? AdamSmithee 21:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ready to be moved. A few further comments, though. I generally prefer titles to be listed under the first word, ignoring articles such as "a" and "the." Also, I wasn't sure why Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is listed twice. Are there two versions? Also, is the Zombie that's listed Zombi 2? Шизомби 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll move it. TX for the help so far. As for the comments/questions

I agree with sorting ignoring articles (though it might take a while to resort);
Henry... - I found it on a list with 1990 as year and I thought there might be a different version, though I now think it was an error - I will remove it;
Zombie - the movies with no year listed come from the Fangoria 101 list; the problem is that I had only the title list with no details, so I'm not sure wich film it is. Is there any way for you to find out what film is mentioned by Fangoria under this title? AdamSmithee 22:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the IMDb trivia, Henry was shot in 1986 and not released until 1989, that may be why the discrepancy. I don't think a movie titled Zombie is in the Fangoria book. It's not on the list I copied from my friend's copy of the book, nor is it in the table of contents when I looked it up on Amazon. Шизомби 23:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it up and you are right. The Zombie entry came from the Bravo TV list and is actually Zombi 2. I made the change and also moved it do Done section. You are really good at this :-) AdamSmithee 07:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsorted

I finished sorting the unsorted section- should I delete the headers from that section? -Elizabennet 03:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things

First of all, I'm working on adding infoboxes to the movies that need them so they can be moved to the 'done' page. I'm not good at synopses and am not sure if its legal to just copy them from imdb or amg and so haven't been doing them.
Second of all, I think there should be a Category (Notable Horror Films) attached to this list (i.e. all the films on this list get put in that category). I don't know if there is one already... but there should be!
Also, is there any way we can make it on to the Horror Portal page, and/or more prominently on the Horror Wikiproject page. -Elizabennet 17:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you did a great job here! Secondly, a category for notable horror films would not make sense as, at least teoretically, only notable films are alowed to have articles - so all the hundreds of articles (I'm guessing here) are notable! However, the Horror WikiProject template on the articles' talk pages has an "importance" field which could serve this purpose. So, if you figure out how that works, all these articles should be assessed as Top/High importance. AdamSmithee 00:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong

While looking through this list, I noticed that the article King Kong was listed here. It should be removed immediately for not being a horror film, this being a list of "Notable Horror Films". The article King Kong is about the character, not the film under the same name. King Kong (1933 film), for example, is a horror film article, but not King Kong. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]