"A Mother is God to a child.."

by **JerkyLeBoeuf** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:37 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm not the kids who picked on you for being horror geeks or whoever you still resent for doing whatever.<hr></blockquote> Gee, project much? First you accuse us of attempting to "peg" you as some "type", and then you bust out THIS little gem of puddle-deep amateur psycho-analysis? Going by all the available evidence, I think my original diagnosis of you being "an annoying little prick" is pretty much "spot on", as the kids used to say. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Just shut the fucking hell up, ok?<hr></blockquote> Um... no. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Again: Goodbye.<hr></blockquote> Oh yes, and please, for the love of Christzilla, STAY gone this time! The next time I feel like listening to an asshole, I'll fart.

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:46 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Perhaps worse was that it was impossible to sympathize with anyone being killed, except:<hr></blockquote> That scene personifies my argument. Forget empathy,when I saw it I was completely mortified, especially by what her last words were. I totally failed to reckon the context of her death with any validity to the film's story at all. It was unfettered ugliness for no other sake than it's own, and the only logical explanation I could derive from it is that it was placed there deliberately as a trauma device. So why do film makers feel a need to traumitize the viewer with details that are either irrelevant to a storyline or excessively linger on scenes of extreme horror/violence? Take Blair Witch, for example, for contrast. I felt that was a _p e r f e c t_ Horror Film that elegantly suspended disbelief without overwhelming the viewer with incessant gore and torture scenes lasting minutes on end..It followed classic recipes for scaring the audience in a manner they'd be able to LEAVE AT THE THEATRE, shaken up, exhilarated even, but not taking home an image permanently branded into someone's head of a woman's face slowly being burned off.. Hitchcock would curse these new directors. So would Lovecraft.. I think the best horror is that which leaves the viewer's imagination to ad lib what's being seen/heard with their own imagination. I don't think it's neccessary at all to render celluloid personifications of 'Evil' in pixel-perfect detail, but film has taken it upon itself to do exactly that. It's also setting ambushes in non-horror genres with elements of extreme horror that are unfair to an unprepared audience, especially children. Scared -vs- Scarred.. THIS IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO ADDRESS IN THIS THREAD.. ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

by **FourthBase** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:49 am

Jerky: I was kicked out of this thread unfairly. But I sure as hell am not going to let you talk shit about me. I have reason to be prideful. You don't. I own the last word. You don't. You are battling me as if you've battled "my type" before. I assume you were relentlessly teased for being a horror movie geek. You don't want me to make that random assumption? Then don't assume shit about me. And, oh: Shut your fucking mouth when I leave the thread again. Thanks. Goodbye. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fourthbase>FourthBase</A> at: 8/22/06 10:50 pm

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:01 am

fourthbase, I'm going to petition Jeff to remove your comments from this thread. They are neither contructive, nor relevant to this discussion, which is a valid one here in the RI community. If you insist on instigating people further I wouldn't be surprised if they themselves eventually called for your removal from the board. If this is the best you have to offer, they have my complete agreement that you're not a neccessary figure here. ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

by **FourthBase** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:11 am

Oh really, Et? Go the fuck ahead. Jeff can read, he's not illiterate. He'll be able to see quite clearly that I was on-topic. You had no business making it personal. I recommend removing both my flaming posts and yours and Jerky's. But just try to ask for my removal. I've had one flame issue before, and it was also instigated by someone else. I honored your request. But you two kept insulting me. Tough fucking shit if I keep coming back. Stop insulting me = I'm gone. Pretty simple. You OBVIOUSLY know this is not the best I have to offer. You OBVIOUSLY know this is out of character for me. Does it not strike you that maybe you fucked up? #1 - Taking what I wrote personally, forcing me to leave. #2 - Talking shit about me after I left.

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:18 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You had no business making it personal.<hr></blockquote> As for first blood, you crossed the personal threshold when you posted this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You like watching people being terrorized and sliced apart? I mean, isn't that what it basically is? On a short bio, perhaps a personal ad, next to your "likes"...would you write "watching people being terrorized and sliced apart"?<hr></blockquote> It's not our fault that scary movies made you piss and shit the bed when you were a kid. Or does that still happen? Because if so.. <img src="http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/positive6.jpg" style="border:0;"/> ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=etinarcadiaego@rigorousintuition>et in Arcadia ego</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.sickle666.com/images/Arcadia.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 8/22/06 11:19 pm

by **JerkyLeBoeuf** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:26 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's not our fault that scary movies made you piss and shit the bed when you were a kid.<hr></blockquote> Et In Arcadia Ego, gosh-darn it, I think you've gone and pegged him!

by **FourthBase** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:30 am

Wow, that guy looks EXACTLY like my ex-girlfriend's dad. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You like watching people being terrorized and sliced apart? I mean, isn't that what it basically is? On a short bio, perhaps a personal ad, next to your "likes"...would you write "watching people being terrorized and sliced apart"?<hr></blockquote> Hmmm... NB: ? i.e., All you had to say was "No, and here's why". Furthermore, the "you" there was addressed to "the horror movie fan", not "et in Arcadia ego". Or have you ("you" as in et in Arcadia ego) never before encountered a rhetorical question addressed to a generic "you"?

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:36 am

"Take Blair Witch, for example, for contrast. I felt that was a _p e r f e c t_ Horror Film that elegantly suspended disbelief without overwhelming the viewer with incessant gore and torture scenes lasting minutes on end..It followed classic recipes for scaring the audience in a manner they'd be able to LEAVE AT THE THEATRE, shaken up, exhilarated even, but not taking home an image permanently branded into someone's head of a woman's face slowly being burned off.." I had something of an opposite reaction to it. I wasn't really shaken when watching it, but later I remembered some of its scenes with a keen sense of dread. Especially on our stairs late at night, thinking of the woman's shrieks as she was apparently carried to the basement. ("Apparently' because it's off screen, but I think implied by the camera movement.) Most horror films lack a lingering sense of dread, but I think that is what distinguishes the best of the genre. Gore is usually a substitute for imagination, and without imagination there can be no dread.

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:01 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Most horror films lack a lingering sense of dread, but I think that is what distinguishes the best of the genre. Gore is usually a substitute for imagination, and without imagination there can be no dread.<hr></blockquote> Indeed. Maybe it's possible that the indutry is yeilding to the majority's complaints against being forced to rely on their own imagination as a stimuli; that was a polarizing issue with BWP. The unimaginative majority want nothing left to themselves, so we have these groutesqueries in the place of quality horror that served as excellent distractions from day to day trivialities(or even traumas). Nothing out there today quite introduces the sense of dread one feels at the begining of the Shining when the camera hovers over the car on that long winding mountain road. You just know you're in for a rough ride. That's good horror. The expusive gratuiity of today's Horror mock-ups are cheap imitations that have damage potentials these older films did not possess, and I'm honestly concerned about that.. ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

by **Sepka** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:47 am

I skipped "Blair Witch" because I thought I'd not be able to leave it at the theater. The scene in the previews that got to me was a girl hiding in a tent, crying in fear. That sort of thing always bothers me more than pretend gore. The thing that's most satisfying to me about the older Gothic horror movies is their intense moral streak. The people who are killed generally bring it upon themselves in some manner, whereas the hero or heroine who's pure of heart may be menaced, but will always emerge intact. Even when the formula is deliberately violated, such as with the death of the little girl in "Frankenstein", a moral seems to be present. She died as the result of Doctor Frankenstein's hubris. One of my all-time favourites of the genre is "The Abominable Doctor Phibes", in which the title character avenges himself one by one against the team of physicians whose carelessness killed his wife. The mad doctor seems unstoppable, until he finally steps over the bounds and targets not his enemy, but his enemy's innocent son. At this point his plans unravel, and he is defeated. That, to me, is satisfying horror. -Sepka the Space Weasel

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:00 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>One of my all-time favourites of the genre is "The Abominable Doctor Phibes", in which the title character avenges himself one by one against the team of physicians whose carelessness killed his wife. The mad doctor seems unstoppable, until he finally steps over the bounds and targets not his enemy, but his enemy's innocent son. At this point his plans unravel, and he is defeated. That, to me, is satisfying horror.<hr></blockquote> The Phibes movies are favorites of old for me. ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

by **bvonahsen** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:46 am

I was under the inpression that "horror" is usually psychological and what some here are talking about seems to be something else. Gore, slasher films have never been that interesting. They are the lowest form of the genre. == I want to say something else. It seems to me that lots of people here on RI are more than a little on edge lately. I have certainly been that way. It may be that there is a reason. Perhaps it is the is times, or discussing these sorts of issues that is doing it. Perhaps..... well, we talk about many thing on this board that we have little to no control over. Makes you feel vulnerable and I know me, when I feel like that I get a bit testy and snap at people. Say things that I regret later. I thought I would put that out there as food for thought.

by **dugoboy** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:54 pm

i think horror was more about its symbolism, the only 'horror' movies i watch are the zombie ones. of the newest i liked 28 days later the most. zombies are symbolic, speaking of the 'walking dead' who question nothing they see. what you guys think of this? ___________________________________________ "BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT." -Me "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." - Ian Fleming "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George OrwellEdited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dugoboy@rigorousintuition>dugoboy</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.geocities.com/orcthrasher/files/images/Qn38113.gif" BORDER=0> at: 8/23/06 12:56 pm

by **streeb** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>zombies are symbolic, speaking of the 'walking dead' who question nothing they see. what you guys think of this?<hr></blockquote> Copy that, Dugoboy. The orig Dawn of the Dead especially. I think Day of the Dead is very underrated, too, and covers similar ground as 28 Days Later, but much more effectively in my opinion.

"A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Re: "A Mother is God to a child.."

Who is online