Talk:Horror film/Archive 1

message: I don't think the seperation of films into decades works to well in discussion of the Horror Film. I've seen a more accurate (IMO) breakdown of the eras of Horror done as such: Early Horror (1890-1920s) - Not much typifies this era beyond the first timid steps done by a few filmakers, mostly in Europe with such films as The Cabinet of Dr. Calligari. Gothic Horror (1930s-1940s), the era of Universal Horror films. Drive-in Era (1950s-1968) where horror was often mixed with Science Fiction, Appocalyptic Horror (1968-1996) beginning with Psycho and Night of the Living Dead, the Appocalyptic film typifies most of the genre themes played upon in Scream and other things such as inept authority, isolated heroes, "the Final Girl", a growing reliance on shock-horror/gore, etc. Unfortunately, this breakdown does not yet have a title for our current age of horror, so it's usefullness is debatable. --Majin Gojira
: That makes a quicker overview. But it seems to me that, looking back on the past half-century, you can see some trends that were roughly unique to one decade or other. That's only rough, mind you, since admittedly not much is worth noting about some decades. IE, the 90s were a bit barren (though, in retrospect, you can find a few strands of interest -- ie, east-inspired occult horror stuff ala Ringu; various remakes, like Dawn of the Dead and Texas Chainsaw Massacre; and a turn towards dark fantasy). "Millenial horror", I agree, was just added for completeness's sake. 
: Anyway, if you make modifications that don't toss out the observations made on the page, I don't think people will mind that much. But I must highlight that I certainly think that a lot more happened in the 68-96 period than just apocalyptic films. The rise of awful slasher films is one noteworthy example. Lucidish 00:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should we dump the naming of years/decades altogether in the headings, since there's so much overlap among decades and trends?  Meaning, decades and trends don't line up terribly well all the time.  Then the main text would take care of setting the timeframe.  Maybe a bad idea, just a thought.  Michael Wells 22:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eras of Horror 

message: I don't see an easy answer, but why is Evil Dead mentioned under the banner of the 1990's? Parts one and two both came out in the 80's and hardly seem representative of "90's horror" if we use the example of Scream. --Feitclub 14:56, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
: i changed it. there is still some out-of-place films like "rosemarys baby" in the 70s and "silence of the lambs" in the 1960s, but couldnt find a nice way to rewrite them into the correct decade. Niz 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evil Dead 

message: I don't know enough about the subject to meaningfully contribute, but should there be a mention of sympathetic monsters, like King Kong? And were there any significant horror films in the 1940s? (Even if no, it should be mentioned.) 68.81.231.127 00:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i added a bit more about it Niz 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sympathetic monsters? 

message: A lot of changes have been made to this article recently in the mistaken belief that horror films can only be about the supernatural. References to sci-fi films, The Fly, Frankenstein, The Silence of the Lambs and Alien have all been removed. I reinstated them because this is totally wrong, horror films don't have to be about the supernatural. I have also removed these intensely POV paragraphs written by someone pushing the case for the separation of "psycho films" from horror films:
"More ludicrously, it has sometimes been used to umbrella films which don't even go that far, but are simply made by people associated with horror film production, such as the Sherlock Holmes films of Universal Pictures Co. Inc.."  
"One result of the common appeal of these two genres with the same audience was the tendency of fans, and fans-turned-film-scholars, to not discriminate between true horror films and their feel-alike compatriots in the psycho genre, a problem which remains today in film study."
JW 15:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I noticed the same thing and edited the intro accordingly. Thanks for spotting the things I missed. Lucidish 18:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are a lot of POV issues here even aside from the egregious examples above.  The bit on Coppola's Dracula, for one example, is virtually content-free - it's just gushing, with vague adjectives like "brilliant."  It's easy to get carried away writing about movies you love - I've done it - but I think this sort of thing needs to get reduced on a lot of the film pages. Michael Wells 17:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hah. My fault on that. I couldn't think of anything else to write. I think it was partially out of shame for having overlooked such a momentous flick. Lucidish 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  actually it wasnt very momentous - it had virtually no influence, got bad reviews, disappointing boxoffice, is not remembere much today, and people thought at the time it would revive all the old universal monsters but it didnt! i left it in but removed the gushing stuff. Niz 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edit it as you please. However, your assessments of critical reaction is totally off base. Rotten Tomatoes has Dracula at an 87% rating -- nothing to sneeze at. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bram_stokers_dracula/ Lucidish 22:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Issues 

message: This is really strange: the films Blood Feast and Two Thousand Maniacs are described as David Friedman movies.  David Friedman was a producer on these, whereas the director/writer (and auteur, if you want to call him that) was Herschell Gordon Lewis,who is a truly significant figure in horror history and the one who ought to be mentioned here.  Furthermore, the David Friedman wikilinked is a libertarian economist, not a horror movie producer.  Not that you couldn't be both, but apparently he isn't.  I'm just going to change it.  Weird... Michael Wells 17:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Friedman? Try H.G. Lewis 

message: Niz: Can I ask what your reasoning was behind editing Notable actors, directors etc? It appeared to be totally arbitrary. I am re-adding some of the most important names you deleted.
Also, could you use the Preview button a bit more? I had to trawl back through pages and pages of history to trace all the changes you made, where if you'd just previewed instead of publishing, it would be a lot fairer on other users. 
Cheers! David L Rattigan 0825 2005 JULY 21 GMT
:I have now re-edited the notables sections. I selected those films, actors and directors that were important or influential within the genre. For those I wasn't familiar with, I followed the links and read the entries to gauge whether they were just someone's personal favourite or were truly "notable". David L Rattigan 0839 2005 JULY 21 GMT
:: i removed any people or films that were already mentioned in the main text, to avoid unnecessary duplication... so that section becomes "Other notable people and films". Niz 10:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see an argument for either way.  I can see people coming to the horror film entry and jumping to the "Notables" lists in order to track down entries, in which case it would be good to include all the notable names and titles.  On the other hand, the Notables lists can become terribly long and unwieldy if they're not limited to people not noted in the main text.  Um, was that helpful? Michael Wells 19:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Notables etc 

message: Added tag coz I think more could be done to include non-Hollywood and non-Anglophone films. We should encourage anyone with knowledge of these to contribute. 213.202.148.158 18:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical bias 

message: Oh dear. Sorry, but I really don't like the new intro. Its too POV and a bit questionable factually. "The haughty intellectualism of the 19th and 20th centuries"? Who invented the horror genre in the first place, wasn't it those 19th century Victorians? JW 13:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yep, got rid of that sentence, and removed some pov stuff in "millenial horror" section to.. Niz 15:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I removed the names of these headers ('The 1950s: Cold War Paranoia' etc). They're cute but they're way too much one person's POV and simplify matters overmuch. The Singing Badger 02:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section headers 

message: Anybody want to mention the periods where the genre has been parodied and how that has affected the genre itself? Look at Grindhouse, Scream, and Scary Movie.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.54.8 (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pattern of Parody 

message: Please comment on these suggestions. The list is still being built for First Films which will hopefully be comprehensive.
===First Films===
Here is a short list of first films in the various series. Before adding them how many were missed? This new catagory would be a great addition for those who may be looking for a new series to watch which the user may not have heard of before.
There was a list of films here, however, to keep the page brief, they have been editted out by the author of the list. The first films can be found on the List of horror films by a special note next to the movie title in angle brackets.
===Horrific Locals===
How about a section on the locations where these films take place? Which state in the USA has the highest rate of horror in it? Could it be Maine where Stephen King bases almost all of his novels? It could also be Illinois since most of the Halloween movies, Children of the Corn III, Damien: Omen II, Candyman, and maybe others take place there
===Comments===
*the list of films belongs in List of horror films if its not already there.
**Should a new heading be started on that page for this list, or should this idea be dropped? Lady Aleena | Talk 17:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section Suggestions 

message: *the list of films belongs in List of horror films if its not already there.
**Should a new heading be started on that page for this list, or should this idea be dropped? Lady Aleena | Talk 17:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Lady Aleena 02:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Submitted by

message: I just removed most of the external links from this article. As the template said, some of them were blatantly commercial. Other were just links to articles, which isn't *bad* as such, but unless they happen to be useful, verifiable sources for material in the article (and if so, they should be ref'ed properly), I really don't see much point in them being linked here. At the very least, the article is now rid of the spam template, and anyone wanting to add a link back should have to justify why it should be included.  - Motor (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: *I would like to suggest that a section on horror film subgenres be added, explaining each subgenre and giving examples. Subgenres could include comments on slasher flicks, zombie movies, psychological horror, adaptations of horror fiction, Japanese New Horror, Italian gore, and so forth. - CNichols 18:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A section on horror film subgenres would obviously be a great idea. I think that nobody really started it because nobody is sure what to put in. If you have an idea, maybe you could start the section AdamSmithee 23:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The thing is that this was a featured article candidate. It failed mostly because it is almost only about horror history. So a section on subgenres would be welcome (of course giving some notion of each subgenre and linking to the main specific article for detailed info) AdamSmithee 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horror films subgenres 

message: i was wondering if there is a list of fictional killers anywhere. i'd like to see one. i feel this page focuses more on "supernatural horror" ... ghosts, zombies, things like that. there are so many famous ficticious serial killers. i'd like to see their names in a list.
list of horror film killers
awesome! Rocketqueen 13:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of fictional killers 

message: Could or should we have an article on this, or do the majority of horrors have an element of fantasy? Arniep 10:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comes to think of it Sci-fi horror might be worthy of an article too. Arniep 10:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantasy-horror would bring more to mind stuff that crosses with traditional fantasy, e.g. witches and wizards, especially in a medieval setting. Supernatural horror usually deals more with the occult, e.g. bringing the dead back to life. It's a fine line, since many fantasies have horror elements (e.g. the werewolves in Harry Potter). The movie Army of Darkness is one example that springs to mind of a fantasy-horror hybrid. marbeh raglaim 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantasy-Horror 

message: "The Blair Witch Project attempted straight-ahead scares. But even then, the horror was accomplished in the ironic context of a mockumentary, or mock-documentary". i don't see what's ironic about this. and even if it's meant as some part of the meaningless literary sense of the word, that is nothing to do with the type of irony that was being discussed in the article (i would also argue that being self-aware doesn't constitute irony anyway, but that's a losing battle), so it's not much of an "even then". blair witch seemed to me like a fairly straight-forward movie with a clever gimmick. --dan 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blair Witch 

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;
::(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).
LuciferMorgan 21:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for GA Delisting 

message: Also mentioning (one or a few of the most notable) horror films they've been in could be useful. Like this maybe:
Name           	Film(s)
Anthony Hopkins	Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal
Ralph Bates    	Hammer Horror productions
Doug Bradley   	Hellraiser series
Bruce Campbell 	Evil Dead series
qwm 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for the notable actors list 

message: I just noticed that an indie movie from 1970, The Honeymoon Killers, is included in this category. I think that is a mistake. I just saw this movie on TCM, and it is definitely not in the genre. It is a true crime story that is surprisingly free of blood and gore. Any other thoughts on this? I will wait a while and if there is no objection I am going to remove it from the category. --Silverscreen 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Honeymoon Killers]] 

message: What was the name of the horror film, maybe from the 70s, where the old man and woman would capture people, plant them in a garden up to thier neck, cut their voiceboxes out, and feed them through a straw?  It was veyr popular in the 80s on late night horror movie channels and developed a cult following.  Any idea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.84 (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to ID 

message: Think we could get a section on which movie is the greatest? I know the films that have been considered the greatest ever page lists a few, but since this is a page made just for horror films we could include more movies and more detail. I mean, lots of people I talk to think that The Exorcist or The Shining are the greatest horror movies ever. I think it would be good to say why. --Plasma Twa 2 06:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greatest Horror Movie 

message: :Image:Catpeople.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use rationale for image updated. --Northmeister 16:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Catpeople.jpg 

message: Is there any way to distinguish horror films that are fantasy such as 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' and films that involve an ordinary guy killing people like 'I Know What You Did Last Summer'? 218.215.130.26 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fantasy or not fantasy 

message: How does the section on the 1990's not mention The Silence of the Lambs film?  It was the first and only horror film to win the Best Picture Oscar.  I think it deserves mention in this article and in this section.  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 05:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1990's 

message: :Image:200px-Nightmare01.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:200px-Nightmare01.jpg 

message: :Image:200px-Hostel film.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:200px-Hostel film.jpg 

message: Over two years ago I made a template for the macroseries created by Freddy vs. Jason. I put it up for peer review and at the time it was too big. Back then there weren't collapsible templates, so yes, it was too big. Now that the collapse functionality is here, I added it. I would like to know what you all think of it before I put it into the main template space. So, here it is for your inspection. Please leave notes on its talk page. Thanks! - LA @ 07:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freddy and Jason: A new template Part 2 

message: The image :Image:Bateshower.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:
*:Image:Scream (1996 film) poster.jpg
*:Image:Fredkruegermoviefirst.png
*:      Image:Exorcist-regan.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with Image:Bateshower.jpg 

message: I don't want to be confrontative, but much of this article seems rooted in popular views of the film (probably informed by relatively sloppy newspaper reviewers) instead of a more systematic and careful analysis. It would be valuable to include significant amounts of analysis (in summary) from academic and director-screenwriter sources. There is a lot out there already, as aestheticians have been discussing horror films since Nosferatu.
Tgkohn 21:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Quality 

message: I added a small bit on Let the Right One In earlier and it was reverted for being "uncited + opinion". However, I feel that this movie is worth mentioning at least somewhere in the 2008 section. At the moment, Let the Right One In has a 97% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with 77 positive reviews out of 79 total with a 7.9/10 average rating. To give an example of what the critics are saying, Colin Covert calls it "one of the essential horror films of the decade." Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Inquirer remarks "is up there with the bloodsucking classics." This film has won 13 awards and, to top it off, it currently holds 199 on the IMDb top 250. I believe this film is pretty significant, especially if Quarantine is to be mentioned, which just barely earned "positive reviews." It should also fit into the section about remakes as Cloverfield director Matt Reeves is tied to direct the remake. — Iggy Koopa (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice to have some more non-US films in - and i don't think the best use of space is to list all the remakes currently planned. I think this film was removed because of lack of cites for notability (not that any of the others have them). If you re-add it, quickly mentioning the critical reception and awards (with cites), i would support its inclusion. With the US remake already planned, it would even flow with the preceding paragraph if written in the right way, or in a the paragrphh mentioning remakes of foreign classics like Ring. Sticking to a strict chronological timeline within the decade subsections looks amateurish, imo. A real encylopedia would discuss thematic groupings, not a timeline of "this was made, then this, then this".Yobmod (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The listing of new films with no discussion of importance is making me feel that this article needs a "recentism" tag, in addition to the "worldview" tag :-(.Yobmod (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Let the Right One In 

message: I deleted the Sixth Sense blurb because its a psychological thriller, not a horror no matter how much people delude themselves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.81.80 (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is. --Gman124 talk 03:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sixth Sense is not horror 

message: Dear users/participants of Wikipedia
I have recently added links at the Wikipedia horror film, science fiction film and fantasy film pages which refer to the "Bibliography of Fantastic Film", an international bibliography of the secondary literature on fantastic film focusing on horror, science fiction, fantasy and experimental film. The administrator User_talk:Ckatz has deleted these links several times arguing that Wikipedia is not a compilation of links, that a link to the "Bibliography of Fantastic film is advertisement/spam and violates the rules of Wikipedia, and that I am not allowed to promote a site which I'm involved in as an author. A strange argumentation: not the quality of a linked site matters, but the author/contributor. Finally Ckatz commended me to find another editor to set a link to my bibliography. That suits me fine because I think (as I told the administrator previously) that it should be the decision of the Wikipedia users and not of a single person wether a link to a free scholary bibliography on the topic of the related Wikipedia article is relevant or not.
So, following the suggestion of Ckatz, I request You, the users of Wikipedia interested in fantastic film, to check out the "Bibliography of Fantastic Film" and decide by yourself wether it is relevant for a Wikipedia link or not. If yes, please feel free to ad a link to my Bibliography by your own.
If You want to send me a message You can use the discussion page of my Wiki username User_talk:Athenaion or email directly to Holger.Schnell@gmx.net. I have copied this text to the discussion site of the horror, science fiction and fantasy articles of the English Wikipedia. You can also find it at my own Athenaion discussion site. Thanks for Your attention.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Athenaion (talk • contribs) 10:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to the "Bibliography of Fantastic Film" 

message: Year of the Devil.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.197.201 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1920 

message: This is a horrible article, full of commercials and fan-like accolades; highly opinionated, it lacks objectivity and should be rewritten completely or deleted altogether.  Also, the present tense, not the past, should be used in writing of even "old" movies, as they remain artistic artifacts which can, and are, written and spoken of (and filmed) in the present.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.14 (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be willing to take some of it on. I think a restructure would help with clarity. I'll give it some consideration. I just finished a project on the horror genre and I feel like I got a good overview.Sugarcoma (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've long used Wikipedia as a resource, and feel I can contribute to certain subjects, so I'm creating a draft for a new version of this page.  I have several scholarly and popular source materials that can be used as direct citations.  However, being new to the editing side of things, I'm wondering if it is appropriate to re-organize and re-write an entry top to bottom without prior input from other editors.  I know that aggressive (bold?) editing is encouraged among users, but it seems to me prior consensus would be useful before an overhaul is actually posted.  Any suggestions?  Also, after researching "fair use" criteria as it applies to Wikipedia, I'm still utterly confused as to what defines a "free" or "fair-use" image. Radio London (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't know if you guys have been working on it, but this article is still in need of work. Way too much POV, personal opinion and interpretation is injected into a majority of the article.Kiwisoup (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite desperately needed 

message: It mostly consists of untrue facts (like inserting that they disgust their audiences, because some of them "tend" to, but it's not a referenced fact). The opening is too long, and says something about dealing with your nightmares? It's not professional at all. I really wish bad writers didn't have Wikipedia. I'm probably a hypocrite though, because we're not perfect. I'd love to have time to write this article, research sources, and fix everything. I could help a little, but we need additional help. So please, please, please improve this article. Let's make it a feature article again. :) Nitefirre (talk) 1:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who in the heck wrote this?! 

message: In the 1970's-1980's section there is no reference to any 80s movies apart from Friday the 13th.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.98.35 (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reference to 80s movies 

message: The image :File:Chuckydoll.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.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with File:Chuckydoll.jpg 

message: This article would be improved if someone can demonstrate when the term was first used and then popularised. Many of the films listed in this genre would have been considered 'suspense' films when first released. I don't recall the term 'horror film' being used until about the 1980s. 
Interesting fact: the first time I tried to look up 'suspense film' here on Wiki, I was re-directed to 'horror film' and the second time, I was re-directed to 'thriller film.' Make up your mind, why don't you? Grandma Roses (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent suggestion, I have added a statement to the beginning of the article to this effect.  The term actually dates back to the early 1930s and has since been applied in retrospect to some earlier films.  Sp4cetiger (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the term 'horror film' 

message: This miscellany section often duplicates information already included, and links to lists of films rather than developed articles. I would suggest the links are incorporated into the article where they are not already present, and this section deleted. Philip Cross (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The list also lacks citations as to valiity of the terms, as well as the legitimacy of placing individual films under them. Philip Cross (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one has responded in favour of retaining the sub-genre section, or objected to its potential removal in the more than a year that has elapsed since I began this section. I have now added to the spin-off articles those titles which were absent, incorporated sub-genre links into the body of the article where necessary and expanded the 'see also' section to reduce the chance that any reader will miss articles which interest them. In the case of 'action horror' there is no Wikipedia article on the topic, and negligible RS to suggest that this is a notable sub-genre. Philip Cross (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-genres 

message: Under the 2000' section the Rob Zombie film from 2007 is cited as inspiration for series of remakes and re-imaginings yet the list that follows contains films from 2003, and 2005, all before the Rob Zombie film from 2007 so citing that film as an inspiration for films that were made before it is kind of well wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.21.204 (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed that. Sean199813 (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000's 

message: Maximilianklein (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WorldCat Genres 

message: This section is not very clearly written.  It would be helpful if this section was cleaned up, because as it stands it makes little sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.87.110 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences subheading 

message: Does the movie Cabaret count as a horror film? Even if the 'horror' does not involve such unearthly creatures as demons, werewolves, ghosts, zombies, vampires, etc., the horror is clearly Nazis, flesh-and-blood creatures who can give any unearthly creature some strong competition. Nazis, I must regret, are not mythical creatures.
Some of the elements of a horror flick include:
Freakish characters  -- just think of the emcee. He has to be creepy to make this film work.
Bad things happening to good people.  In fact, bad things seem to happen only to good people. The only likable characters are the Jews -- and although it could not be known to Germans in 1930 or so, the portents of what would happen to them were shown. Just think of the scene in which the emcee appears with a chimp as a "girlfriend". 
Dark humor -- really-dark humor.
Even what seems superficially wholesome (the "Tomorrow Belongs to Me") has horrible overtones. 
I find it the perfect Halloween flick. 
So what if it is good in other categories?  Pbrower2a (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabaret (movie) 

message: Large sections of this article need desperate re-writes and citations. Just thought I should bring this obersvation to the table because no one else seems to have. Alialiac (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not into really into horror, but this article may qualify as an entry. I'm working on copy-editing and compressing the text, and removing irrelevant or else-located information. Directors and stars are important, but anyone who wants that info can go to the film's actual WP page. I'll also be taking many unsourced lists of films out; there is an entire publishing industry alive because everyone has a favourite film. Unless there's evidence and a source to backup a specific inclusion, I'll be leaving only a few names in (and most likely at random). This is a genre page, not a "list of films by..." page. If there is a specific inclusion warranted through a good source, feel free to replace another or add it along with its contribution and the citation. I'll likely eliminate the explanations in the subgenres section (they already have pages, go there to learn about them), and shuffle a few "see also"s into that section. Rhowryn (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large parts of article poorly written 

message: I found and fixed the source in the article, and then read the source. The section made claims entirely unsupported by the EW source. I also found that the previous source also led to an expired library database session. It appears that the original author neglected to find links accessible to the majority of us. The EW source was appropriate for the remaining bit about the prevalence of women as the audience for horror, but the rest was nowhere to be found in the source.
I also rewrote the last section to be a bit less condescending. "Women relatable topics such as pregnancy and motherhood"? What is this, Pleasantville? Plenty of people relate to all sorts of things, and even if the sentence wasn't so demeaning, the larger audiences of women going to both newer and older (rescreened) films (as the EW article mentions), I'm going to suppose that those "themes" aren't what's drawing anybody in. Rhowryn (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences on society 

message: Under “Subgenres," "The Human Centipede" is listed as an example of a spatter film. But doesn't it fit the definiton of "body horror" more closely?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.100.46.68 (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Human Centipede" Characterization 

message: This article needs to be revised due to the grammar and lack of information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.37.136.53 (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: Most Millennials call this genre  "scary movies," instead of saying "Horror movies," I could be wrong but that is how people often reply when asking if someone likes a horror movie they say "I love scary movies, I hate scary movies," so should we add difference of terms, section?  Please go to my talk page to reply.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.89.236 (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scary Movie as the Genre name?  Difference of terms  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Horror film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415034237/http://www.filmbuffonline.com/Features/EdisonsFrankenstein1.htm to http://www.filmbuffonline.com/Features/EdisonsFrankenstein1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says: "The film The Last Broadcast (1998) served as inspiration for the highly successful The Blair Witch Project (1999), which popularized the found footage horror subgenre."
Is this true? This article begs to differ: https://www.indiewire.com/1999/08/editorial-blair-witch-v-last-broadcast-has-it-really-come-to-this-82145/
Also keep in mind that the first ideas for "The Blair Witch Project" go back to as early as 1993. Defaultuser23894 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Last Broadcast" as inspiration for "The Blair Witch Project" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: This section has multiple problems including bias and what appears to be original research.  For example, it states, "The importance that horror films have gained in the public and producers’ eyes is one obvious effect on our society."  This shows extreme bias without any citations backing it up.  On top of that, it also does not explicitly state which society is being talked about in the first section.  Simply changing the name of the section could solve this individual problem though. --TeeRenTee (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Influences" Section's Problems 

message: I don't think it's optimal to put for instance American Psycho in the same genre as Alien. I think there's a difference between horrific stories and "real" horror film. Boeing720 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several genres 

message: The list of elements in the lede section is not an exhaustive list, it is a list of prominent examples. To that end, we must ensure that it does not grow without bound and become unwieldy, as it had just now until I reduced it a bit. Elizium23 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of elements 

message: An IP editor pointed me to this page.  The heading structure is unbalanced, but the biggest flaw is the 2020s section, which is a bunch of generic wikilinks.  Can somebody fix that, probably by renaming it "See also"?  (I don't have time myself to even read the whole article and don't want to make any changes right now) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let you know, the IP editor in question is a banned user, "Jinnifer," who continues to flout their ban in order to post WP:Original Research, and edit-war incessantly to preserve and protect their nonconstructive edits.  Jinnifer has also taken to badgering other editors in order to either lift page protection to allow them to continue posting their original research gobbledygook, or to convince or dupe other editors into posting aforementioned original research gobbledygook for them.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd seen the "deuteragonist" crap from other IPs, but did not know they were a banned user. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2020s section 

message: “A horror film is one that seeks to elicit fear in its audience for entertainment purposes“ isn’t quite the whole truth. I think it’d be better stated that the universal factor among horror movies is that they aim to evoke a negative reaction in its viewers. Horror movies such as Hostel, Saw or the vast majority of splatter movies don’t really try to evoke “fear” at all but rather simply disgust and revulsion. Same goes for the body horror genre. I think that’s what the lead did say a couple years back, and I thought it was more accurate. --FollowTheSigns (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points, FollowTheSigns. It's more than reasonable for the primary definition of a horror film to refer to 'fear', but you also rightly point out that a significant subset of horror films, especially in the 21st century, primarily seek to disgust or repel/repulse rather than frighten - aside from the horrors you mention, The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (itself referred to as a horror on its own page) is perhaps a prime example. I'd support an amendment to the opening sentence which says "A horror film is one that seeks to elicit fear or revulsion in its audience for entertainment purposes." Gregory 02:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Have changed "revulsion" in the first sentence to "disgust", to reflect the fact that "revulsion" redirects to the Wiki page "disgust", and the word "revulsion" is also used in the second sentence. Gregory 02:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of “horror film” in the lead 

message: The "Timeline" section is an absolute disgrace. Just an incredibly long list (180,000 bytes) of various films, with some WP:OR musings and very little sourcing. I've just been WP:BOLD and massively slashed 2010s, 2000s and 1990s, and tried to add some citations that describe actual trends in horror cinema. I hope other editors don't mind and that this could kickstart further improvement to this. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like this whole article needs a re-write form the get-go. The sources are questionable, actually reading it is a nightmare. I'm tempted to try and pull information to start a new version, but it sounds like a monumental task. I'll get to it someday. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Agree seems like a colossal task. I've added the rewrite tag so others are aware. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Per the suggestion of Arcahaeoindris, i'm going to plan on doing some re-design on the article. One thing I've done in earlier attempts is try to have some emphasis on sections like in List of horror films of the 1950s. I have some books i've ordered from the holidays, specifically The Birth of the American Horror Film by Gary Don Rhodes which I think will help clear up some of the early history of the genre that really very loosely touched upon in most overviews. Other than a brief history, i'm curious what other sections would be good. There's a big danger of these kind of articles just becoming overblown with overt fan cruft and people wanting their favourite or obscure horror film mentioned, which does not really help readers digest an article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

text: So I've been ovserving your edits  I'm going to try and tackle some of the historical sections to clear them up a bit. Sound alright? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a quick(?) re-do of the historical sections from pre-cinema to the 1950s. I'm going to take a break at it form now, but how do people feel about how this is organized? Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks so much for your work, your overhaul is such a massive improvement! It's a a third of the length it was when I flagged this. Structure looks fine to me. I think the main issue is still that the history section is too many examples and WP:TOOMUCH detail. Only particularly notable or influential films should be listed, like e.g. The Blair Witch Project. It would not be unreasonable to split it off into History of horror films at its current length, or in any case parts of it could for sure be made more concise. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to do that, but I feel like when we say things such as "The film created a spawn of similarly _____-themed films like ____, _____ and ____" we kind of have to list them a bit because we need to show that it was a real thing, y'know? I felt it was actually pretty fun to list some nearly forgotten films mixed in with more commonly remembered one. Like, just because it's a trend, it didn't necessarily create "great" works, but it created what the genre's make-up is. I'm wondering what kind of sections would/should be required next following this split. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article for science fiction film looks to be in good shape and can be used as a guide here. History of science fiction films has been forked off and summarised on the main article. That article also has a "Themes, imagery and visual elements" section that could be included for horror films. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Based on what we have in this article already, I think the "influences" section is a bit redundant and unencyclopedic. Any content worth keeping needs to be summarised or the section renamed. The Reception section, particularly about moral panics and censorship, can also definitely be expanded as this is a key issue specific to horror films. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hesitant on the influences section, as the history of film article shows countless adaptations of Poe and shows that towards the end of the 19th century (and very early 20th century) there was a rise of material which would establish the horror film. I finally got my copy of "The Birth of the American Horror Film" and am slowly reading through it. I could probably expand it/re-write it to make it for better prose. I think it's good to have because you can see the turning point in when we're still adapting tons of classical literature (tons of Poe adaptations in early cinema all the way into the 1960s) and after when we just start adapting contemporary authors like Bloch and Stephen King. It's basically a way of saying "these stories dont' come from no where". you know? I'd be down to move it to it's own section and yes, the other sections need updated re-writes themselves.Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry  I was actually referring to the other influences section further down and not the section on early influences in the History section. Your section on literary influences looks good and seems justified for the reasoning you have outlined. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Ahh right on. I'd be fine to remove it and expand upon the other sections. There is a lot to cover on censorship and having it's own section would probably tidy up the history section a bit too. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I've created a proposal for what the current look of the horror film article could look like with a smaller and more concise version on my sandbox here. Thoughts  ? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the split. Draft looks good, thanks for doing that. I will have a quick skim and make some edits in the sandbox page. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good . Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I like it too.★Trekker (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the support everyone! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So as there seems to be nice push for supporting the move, I'm tempted to do it now. I know  was doing a copy-edit on my Sandbox, but I feel like it could still be pruned or have some parts moved around within this section of the article. I'll give it a few bits of discussion, but I think we are good to move forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please proceed. Sorry that I didn't make as many edits as I could have on the sandbox as got sidetracked with other articles. But go for it, can always edit further once the content is up on the page. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I'll move the article shortly. Thanks again for everyone's support. Wikipedia can be great sometimes! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

text: And done. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Great! What an improvement. Yes, I think that is a sensible idea. I would definitely suggest keeping a very broad overview of some of the key points and trends from the History article but the current structure is probably too long and doesn't need to be duplicated. The lead section also needs to be rewritten to summarise the new key points. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Have had a go at rewriting the lead. Much of the previous content was not supported in the body of text. Feel free to make further changes. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Current re-write of the lead seems fine for now. I think as we expand and find more solid strong information for the article, the lead will grow with it, and probably the need for seperate articles (List of horror film sub-genres?) Might need to be made. My suggestion for furture sections might be Regional horror films, where we can discuss more specific details of horror history from around the world. I know the current History of horror film article feels maybe a bit too Western with it's focus on British and American productions, but that seems to be the case as that's where the majority of horror films came from that pushed the trends of industry (outside some bits and pieces from Italy in the 60s and 70s and Germany in the 1920s, and of course the j-horror boom for the late 90s/early 2000s). As  has made some really nice starts too articles like Thai horror, I think some sections  on this could help. I'm also tempted to create a Horror film fandom, or horror film audience subsection, as per my recent additions on trying to define the genre suggest, audiences interpretations of the horror film is has really suggested the definition of the genre as time has moved forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong agree with all of the above. An expansion on "audiences" could probably build on the existing part on "effects on audiences" which needs work. If you're happy to, go ahead and further cut down the history section, although obviously no rush as it is currently the strongest part of the article and know you have put in loads of work on it! Have gone and made a start on a "regional" section just using excerpts from other articles for now, although so far has just been on Asia. In the process have also finally done away with the aimless and superfluous "Influences" section. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Awesome! It feels great to for once work with a wikipedia editor on an article where it's not just us reverting each other's edits :) I think i'll leave history as it is there for now, as we can probably pluck and pull some parts of it for other parts (audience, regional, etc.) Good work on the regional section, i'll try to expand on other parts of it soon. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahah, strong agree on that one! Probably a first for me too lol. Ok great, this article is already in much better shape. I think a few of the cleanup tags at the top can probably be removed now (i.e. rewrite, citations? others?) Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I didn't add any of the tags other than the "re-write" (which we are doing now). "This article may contain indiscriminate, excessive, or irrelevant examples. (January 2017)" might still apply to sub-genres as it's a pretty list-y section. We can probably get rid of "original research" as everything within the article that needs work seems to be tagged and you and I have added sources. The essay part is...probably out of date. I feel like that was part of the various school projects that have edited this article in the past. Maybe we can move the "re-written" part to some sections. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: I've made the proposal on the article to split the History of the horror film to its own article. I think this will help, because it's hard to talk about the history of the article without doing some history (bans on horror films, some mild definitions of genres, etc.) that could be moved into other sections of the article. (i.e: part of the 1970s history of natural horror film can be moved to it's own section, horror films halting production due to the UK pressure and the Video Nasty hysteria of the 1980s, etc.). I think this will immeasurably improve the article that is still very easily tripping over itself in repeating the same stuff over and over, and that's after my own edits! Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a proposal for what the current look of the horror film article could look like with a smaller and more concise version on my sandbox here. Thoughts  ? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the split. Draft looks good, thanks for doing that. I will have a quick skim and make some edits in the sandbox page. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good . Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I like it too.★Trekker (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the support everyone! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So as there seems to be nice push for supporting the move, I'm tempted to do it now. I know  was doing a copy-edit on my Sandbox, but I feel like it could still be pruned or have some parts moved around within this section of the article. I'll give it a few bits of discussion, but I think we are good to move forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please proceed. Sorry that I didn't make as many edits as I could have on the sandbox as got sidetracked with other articles. But go for it, can always edit further once the content is up on the page. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I'll move the article shortly. Thanks again for everyone's support. Wikipedia can be great sometimes! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

text: And done. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Great! What an improvement. Yes, I think that is a sensible idea. I would definitely suggest keeping a very broad overview of some of the key points and trends from the History article but the current structure is probably too long and doesn't need to be duplicated. The lead section also needs to be rewritten to summarise the new key points. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Have had a go at rewriting the lead. Much of the previous content was not supported in the body of text. Feel free to make further changes. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Current re-write of the lead seems fine for now. I think as we expand and find more solid strong information for the article, the lead will grow with it, and probably the need for seperate articles (List of horror film sub-genres?) Might need to be made. My suggestion for furture sections might be Regional horror films, where we can discuss more specific details of horror history from around the world. I know the current History of horror film article feels maybe a bit too Western with it's focus on British and American productions, but that seems to be the case as that's where the majority of horror films came from that pushed the trends of industry (outside some bits and pieces from Italy in the 60s and 70s and Germany in the 1920s, and of course the j-horror boom for the late 90s/early 2000s). As  has made some really nice starts too articles like Thai horror, I think some sections  on this could help. I'm also tempted to create a Horror film fandom, or horror film audience subsection, as per my recent additions on trying to define the genre suggest, audiences interpretations of the horror film is has really suggested the definition of the genre as time has moved forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong agree with all of the above. An expansion on "audiences" could probably build on the existing part on "effects on audiences" which needs work. If you're happy to, go ahead and further cut down the history section, although obviously no rush as it is currently the strongest part of the article and know you have put in loads of work on it! Have gone and made a start on a "regional" section just using excerpts from other articles for now, although so far has just been on Asia. In the process have also finally done away with the aimless and superfluous "Influences" section. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Awesome! It feels great to for once work with a wikipedia editor on an article where it's not just us reverting each other's edits :) I think i'll leave history as it is there for now, as we can probably pluck and pull some parts of it for other parts (audience, regional, etc.) Good work on the regional section, i'll try to expand on other parts of it soon. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahah, strong agree on that one! Probably a first for me too lol. Ok great, this article is already in much better shape. I think a few of the cleanup tags at the top can probably be removed now (i.e. rewrite, citations? others?) Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I didn't add any of the tags other than the "re-write" (which we are doing now). "This article may contain indiscriminate, excessive, or irrelevant examples. (January 2017)" might still apply to sub-genres as it's a pretty list-y section. We can probably get rid of "original research" as everything within the article that needs work seems to be tagged and you and I have added sources. The essay part is...probably out of date. I feel like that was part of the various school projects that have edited this article in the past. Maybe we can move the "re-written" part to some sections. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting horror film history to it's own article

message: , although I recognise your reasoning for this edit, I actually really like the previous Nosferatu image, and prefer it to the replacement one as an opening image to the article. It's a bit scarier and shows some cinematic shadow/negative space which I think captures the spirit of horror quite nicely. We definitely don't need two Count Orloks in the article though, so how about the previous image with the new caption? It's great to be sprucing the whole article up but just wanted to say that. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah i'm kind of flip flopping on it. The other image of Nosferatu is really good, i just felt like "ehh, two nosferatu's in one page?" Nosferatu's look and and visual appearance is important too. I'm thinking we could swap it back to that shadowy version once we expand upon the "Cinematic techniques" section, That way, we can have an image that hits like, a dozen check marks: historical, worldly, and captures imagery that's still used in horror cinema. I remember years ago there was once an image on the site that compared a similar image of Freddy Kruger with his claws out that was similar. I think we could bring back the shadow one with no real issues (other than it's not free, but with all the reasoning above, I think it's the idea choice). So yeah, long winded paragraph from me basically saying "I agree with you." :D Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image