User talk:Yaksar/Horror Icons/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Classic Horror Icon?

I noticed when Jigsaw was under "Classic Horror Icons" that this template needed some revision. So I'm going to take a moment out of my time to define "Classic" and "Modern." [The following definitons are excerpts from dictionary.com] Classic: [1] serving as a standard, model, or guide; [2] of enduring interest, quality, or style. In other words: a classic has stood the test of time; time being the key word. Modern: [1] of or pertaining to present and recent time; not ancient; [2] of, pertaining to, or characteristic of contemporary styles of art [art being cinema, in this case]

Therefor, I believe we need to fix this template and make sure that the only horror icons in the "classic" section have stood the test of time. For example: Leatherface first appeared in the 1970s whereas Jigsaw appeared in the 2000s; this would make Leatherface more succeptable to being a classic horror icon in comparison. That's just an example. But seriously: how can you hold Count Dracula or Frankenstein's Monster to the same quality of Ghostface and not roll your eyes? One of the three previously mentioned icons does not belong. Being a "classic" horror icon should be relevant to age, not fanboyism.

I propose we make the cut off date for "Classic Horror Icons" 1960. Making Norman Bates from the movie Psycho the last of the classic horror icons [which makes sense, because Alfred Hitchcock's films are classics, ask any film critic]. Characters made in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and into the modern era should go in with the "Modern Horror Icons."

So move Jigsaw, Chucky, Ghostface, and Freddy Krueger into the "modern" group and the proper adjustments have been made. All horror icons that come up in 2007 and after will also be placed with the modern icons.

I wont make any changes as of yet because I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this revision.ARBlackwood 02:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They are in the "Modern". Look closely, there is a gap between the line of Classics and the line of Moderns. Notice how they are in alphabetical order for each category. The "Modern" title sits in the middle of two rows. If we were to line them up it would be adjacent to them, but that would make for a very long table. Everyone from "The Creature" to "The Wolf Man" are in Classic, and everyone from "Norman Bates" to "Jason Voorhees" is in the Modern. There are 4 row, 2 rows for each category. We had to break them up because they were too long. Bignole 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Jigsaw

The first Saw movie came out under three years ago. How can you say already that Jigsaw is the beginning of a new wave of horror? What are the other horror films or bad guys of this "new wave of horror"? With a new Saw movie every three years now it's hard to say how much Jigsaw is remembered in the future or what is the influence of the Saw movies. Just because Jigsaw does't personally kill his victims doesn't mean that it't the new wave of horror. Many horror films focus on a killer/bad guy with a personal and original way of being evil. Every new way of being evil is not iconic.

And I might add that it's very probable that David Fincer's Seven was a major influence on Saw. While I don't concider John Doe to be iconic, I think he is way much closer to being an icon than Jigsaw and a lot of Jigsaw originates from John Doe. So, I do not think that Jigsaw should be on the template of horror icons.84.250.48.8 16:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

First, David Fincer's "John Doe" actually killed his victims, Jigsaw doesn't. He's become a recognizable name in popular culture, just like Norman Bates was 30 years ago when he kicked up the wave of slasher films. Bates was the beginning of a new wave and you didn't see "slasher films" start to kick into effect for 10 or so years, that was when they started coming in the numbers. Icon status doesn't necessarly have to be restricted to how long you've been on the screen, but a combination of time, popularity, inspiration, or other things. That is why we wanted to create a formula to decide who really deserves to be on the list. Bignole 16:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning concerning Seven

John Doe forced the lawyer to commit suicide. Doe forced the one guy to kill the hooker with the nasty strap-on. Doe mutilated the model and gave her the option to either live disfigured or commit suicide. He did not kill the pedofile drug dealer, 'just' tortured. Doe forced the fat guy to eat so much that a kick in the stomach killed him. Doe did kill Paltrow's character. The last victim was Doe himself, and Mills killed him, so it's not a simple case to say did or did not John Doe kill. Compared to Jigsaw John Doe also had very sadistic methods and his actions were motivated by moral and ethical issues concerning the victims. And almost every bad guy in horror movies has some kind of trademark. Why does the fact that Jigsaw personally does not kill his victims make him iconic?

End spoilers

Bates did make way to slashers, but then again, Psycho is a 47 year old film and we have seen the effect of it on movies and we know that it did have an influence. Saw is three years old, Saw II is two years old and Saw III is under a year old, or to be precice, Saw III opened less than three months ago. It's way too early to say that Jigsaw is so recognizable name in popular culture that he is to be concidered iconic. People may recognize him because there have been three movies ins such a short time and the last one is still in theaters. Only time will tell will Jigsaw be iconic like Hannibal or Norman Bates. 84.250.48.8 22:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

John Doe had more of a "hands-on" on the deaths of his victims. Jigsaw didn't torture any, he simply places them in situations and makes them do it themselves. It can be a torturous environment, but he certainly isn't kicking any fat men in the stomach, or chopping off heads. You cannot say that Norman Bates didn't achieve his iconic status in american cinema 47 years after he appeared. Hitchcock's film was recognized as something great when it first came out. Again, you are trying to limit it to the fact that he's fresh. Again, I say if you aren't liking the people on the list (and I don't agree with all of them), then help us create a requirement for it. Bignole 03:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it does not really matter in which way Jigsaw 'kills', since many bad guys have their own trademark ways. And Jason Voorhees is quite an unoriginal killer, but he's still an icon. In my opinion what matters is that the bad guy is remebered well after the fuzz around the movie has passed. This has not passed with Saw, since they are so new movies. Norman Bates achieved his iconic status because people did not forget him and Psycho changed the way horror films were made. With Saw movies being so new it's impossible to say that people will remember Jigsaw. And also I haven't seen how Saw has had any major influence on horror films. So, yes, I'm limiting on the basis that Jigsaw is so fresh. When movies come to theaters or are released on DVD, there's a lot of publicity, advertising, hype, interviews and so on so that people would remember. We don't want to let the merchandising and advertising cloud our vision. I think a horror icon is someone that is widely known even when the PR and hype have ceased and who was in an influental movie. I mean that critics and other sources have recognized the movie as influental by pointing out the influences.81.175.134.236 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First, Jigsaw. So the fact that it make substantial amount of profit means nothing. This is a horror movie, they usually don't make hundreds of millions of dollars in just 3 films. You cannot simply take one thing into affect. He's had 3 films, with a fourth on the way, obviously he's recognizable enough to warrant such a series. As for the alien, the creature is a science fiction creature. The film is categorized as science fiction, just because people list the creature as "one of the scariest monsters" doesn't mean it's a horror monster. Also, if you look at the discussion it was talked about creating multiple genres of "scary" villains as sometimes certain characters have ambiguous origins. Bignole 15:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not our job to interpret the profits. The three movies have grossed about 210 million dollars, but you don't evaluate horror movie icons by the profit they make. A lot of things affect the profit, like advertising. And every Saw movie has been made a year apart. The sequels have been made exceptionally quickly, perhaps to cash on Jigsaw in the fear that he is forgotten in a few years. Of course people still remember Jigsaw when they go to see Saw II or Saw III, because they have been made so fast. And I might add that the Puppet Master series has several sequels, but no one conciders the puppets to be iconic.

As for alien, it does not matter wheter it's origin is science fiction. Alien is widely regarded as a science fiction horror movie. Horror movies are movies that are made in the intet to scare people. Saying Alien isn't horror because it's science fiction is like saying Starship Troopers isn't an action movie because it's a scifi movie. Or that John Carpenter's "The Thing" is a science fiction and not a horror movie. Check out the Alien article.81.175.134.236 17:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we had a vote as you saw on the (now archived) discussion and Jigsaw was voted on. The alien was deemed science fiction, now I'm not going to further this discussion with you because you persist in ignoring my other comments about "HELPING" this template grow and expand in the best possible way. I've asked you to help with finding the best formula to deciding who is on the list and you ignore me in favor of further a needless debate about something YOU feel is wrong. Others didn't, that was why it was voted that way. If you do not wish to actuall contribute to this template, and only want to continue arguing over something that was previously decided by multiple editors, then I'm sorry, you'll find nothing further here. Bignole 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything as far as I know. I'm trying to help by criticizing the current template. Ignoring criticism isn't helping. As for the formula I also said that new movies (like Saw) should not be included, because we haven't got the perspective to evaluate them. Or rather it is not our job to evaluate who is and who isn't an icon but rather we should use existing evaluations and use them as reference, and I think they haven't been made about Jigsaw, because no one can see into the future and say that he is remembered or how the movies influenced other movies.

And about the archived voting page. I have to say that it looks a mess and It's hard to understand from it who voted and what. It seems that there was just a few contributors to the vote. I failed to see any reference or source on why Jigsaw is iconic on the voting. Just because you believe he started a new wave on horror does not mean that he's iconic. And as for the alien, it was mainly you who said that it is science fiction and not horror. However there are many sources who state that Alien is am influental horror movie. These articles are a good list on it's influence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_%28film%29#In_film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cultural_references_to_Alien

Shubi 14:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First, things like that are subjective, because you may not agree with them. I don't agree with everything on this list, but it's there because others do. As for your links, your first one is a horribly written article that is riddled with original research and no verification. The second is a comment by Roger Ebert. As for ignoring, I believe you have been ignoring, because I have clearly stated several times "then help us create a formula for the template". You have yet actually do anything other than say "I don't think he should be on the list". As for "using existing evaluations", that's subjective. One list might not have the same names as another list. One list might be about "scary film characters" (which doesn't constitute "HORROR"), hence the reason why are need to expand the template to consist of more than just horror. Bignole 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Reformating the template

To make it fair to other characters, it has been discussed briefly (see archives) that we expand this template to include other genres, like "science fiction", because of certain character's ambiguous origin. First I want to see what genres we should expand to, later we'll see who fits those bills. Just follow the same structure that I am going to leave below. Add a bullet, and then hypen with your signature. If you must comment please keep it brief.

What do we need

• Science Fiction - Bignole

Comment Would Sci Fi count as? A few examples of Sci Fi icons would be helpful please? --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  20:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, King Kong and Godzilla are icons of cinema, but they are science fiction and not horror. The alien is a science fiction creature. There are other genres as well. Silence of the Lambs is not "horror", it's a "thriller", so really Lector would be better suited in that category, along with other icons of that genre (if there are some). Bignole 20:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What defines a 'horror icon'?

I don't mean to war here or anything, but what actually defines a 'horror icon'? Is it their presence on everyone's lips, their popularity, or their everylasting presence?

Also, is the icon status exclusive to American and British cinema? Can it also refer to Japanese, Australian, etc horror icons? (If so, then why are the icons displayed in the template sololy from American and English cinema?)

I feel I must bring this up, because of the presence of the template on the Kayako Saeki article, which does raise these questions. --JB Adder | Talk 02:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. I think it's harder to gadge what's iconic in say Japan, because we don't usually get their characters over here unless we are ripping them off for our own films (the Ring, or the Grudge). Those characters in our (American/British) films are hardly iconic, but in Japan they very well might be "THE" thing. I mean, how has Kayako inspired American pop culture. It's not even a recognizable name here. Unlike Godzilla (which is really science fiction anyway), who's name is recognizable almost everywhere, a true cinematic icon. Bignole 02:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Blue text on black background

The blue text on the black background doesn't work, it's unreadable. Could someone suggest a better colour for the background? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be "dark", kind of symbolizes the genre, but I agree it's hard to see the links to edit and hide and such. Bignole

Even the text "Horror Icons In Film" doesn't show up well on articles. It's white when you look at the actual template page because the link is to the template page. Maybe that link should be removed as that's what the v-d-e links are for. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the link is fine, those "v-d-e" links were not there originally that's something new. The link to the template was created because there wasn't an easy way to access it (minus going into the "edit" and scrolling to the bottom to search for it). So...colors....List of colors what do you think? It needs to be something the reflects the genre. Bignole 15:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Something bloody? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm..Here are some reds Crimson,Sangria,Carmine,Cardinal. Bignole 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I like Crimson the best. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they're all good. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, I'll try out "crimson" on the template, and you guys tell me what you think when it's there. Bignole 13:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the text to black as white wasn't horror-y enough. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, after I changed the side text to black I was looking at it and thinking "why is this hurting my eyes". It was probably because of the white on red background. I think it looks good currently. Now we need to focus on designing a guideline for this template and expanding it to incorporate more than just "horror" and "american cinema". Bignole 23:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Section

I was thinking perhaps we should add a Japanese section underneath the "Modern Part". So then we could have in it things such as The Saekis from The Grudge/Ju:On and Samara Morgan/Sadako from The Ring/Ringu. Adam 1412 10:26 27th January 2007.

We first need to set guidelines for what's "iconic". To me, those to are hardly iconic. They are not as recognizable as Japan's other character Godzilla. I think once we can establish a good guideline for the template, we will be removing some and adding others. Bignole 13:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems OK. Adam 1412 16:58 27th January 2007

"ICON" Guidelines

Let's define what an "ICON" should be. We've neglected this long enough, and we need to set forth guidelines so that when someone adds a character we can simply say "see the guidelines". I think everyone can obviously agree that Freddy, Jason, Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man are clearly Icons of not only "Horror" but American cinema itself. So, I think we should try and disect what makes these characters so iconic to popular culture. Is it their endless run of sequels and immitations? Merchandising? Critical reception? Let's discuss.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  17:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's undoubtedly what constitutes an icon. And frankly, I don't see why the Fly should be discluded. Nor Kayako Saeki from The Grudge. I expect that with the coming third film in that series, plus the other Ju-on series, she'll become an icon in no time. Heck, they'll probably even come out with even more, to tell of her encountering other horror icons such as Jason, Frankenstein, Dracula, Freddy, Mike, Charles, and so on. Ratso 19:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

First, please read why it was removed. It's removed because we need to work out a guideline, not add as much as we can and then later have to remove characters (which we will probably have to do with the currently list anyway). As for Saeki, we haven't determined if we are sticking to American cinema or branching out. Saeki is hardly an ICON in comparison to Freddy and Jason and Dracula. Other than a set of films, whatever culture status she has it's strictly over there in Japan. Chances are, we are probably going to end up setting a "date of existence" which will strike some of these current people out. It isn't about how many films you have done, but more about how that character is refected in society and recognized. If someone said "Chucky" to a group of strangers, chances are they'd recognized that name before they'd recognized Saeko.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  19:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to realize there will be no way to verifiably, and reliably identify "horror icons" and thus this template is probably just a big link of original research. I think renaming it to "related characters" is the best option, next to probably terminating the page for redundancy (as a category already exists for it).  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  19:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Related Characters is the way to go. The only connection some of these characters would have would be that they are popular icons that we normally associate with horror/thriller films. And where did all of these other characters come from? I think Horror Icons should remain up until we find a better name for it... Disinclination 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the name itself of original research, because we have yet to find anything to help conclusively prove who is an icon and who isn't.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to figure out something to do, because I'm tired of seeing characters added and removed constantly. If we stick to "icon" then we need sources to prove it. If we go with a more vague "related" then we need to address how characters can be related to each other enough to warrant inclusion.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  21:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Related Characters" is not a good choice. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the moment it's original research to say "horror icon".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't pass and AfD now. Fictional Horror Characters would be a category, not an infobox at the bottom of a page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we add these characters on the list ?

Ash Williams , Xenomorph ,Predator ,Channard Cenobite andCandyman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.75.24.2 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Also consider: The Thing, The Living Dead, Amityville House, Jack Torrance Ahmashar 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The only one that I truly disagree with (meaning with the current "related characters" and not the "horror icons" name) is Ash. All the other characters are generally perceived as antagonists, and Ash is a protagonists. Also, the alien is exactly that "the alien". Names should be by what is most commonly known, and Xenomorph is more of a fan known name.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The cenobites (even Pinhead) are barely recognizable as such outside of horror fandom so I'd hardly consider any (particularly a one-shot like Chanard) as iconic ... Candyman (and Jigsaw) are economically successful franchises, but Candyman is by no means iconic (and it's really too early to tell with Jigsaw, but I doubt it)... the real point of icons is that they stand the test of time and are still recognizable to a generation after their initial hype has subsided -- they've left an indelible mark on the culture. That's probably true of the alien but not so much the Predator ... As for Ash Williams -- obviously he doesn't belong, but he does point out a big hole: The Living Dead (modern since as an Icon the flesh-eating Zombie took off with George Romero's movies in the 60s) which since Night of the... have featured in numerous franchises, including The Evil Dead, and many others ... just because we aren't talking about one specific individual monster doesn't mean it isn't a horror icon -- in fact it's far more of one than quite a few that are uncontested...--Invisifan 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we add the thing from John Carpenter's The Thing ?

Here some chacthers that we should add .

The Thing - John Carpenter's The Thing

Damien - the omen

The Tall Man

Hannibal

Wishmaster

(talk) 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, Hannibal is already on the template. I don't think "The Thing" should be added because it's not really recognisable. As for Damien, I don't know, but if we do add him then we might have to add the posessed girl from "The Exorcist" which is unlikely. AquafireGal 20:57 25th March 2007 (UTC).

As far as the icons discussed in this list, I think that The Thing (as in the The Thing from Another World, or from the John Carpenter remake, may not be terribly recognizable as a creature unto itself, but does recur as a point of reference throughout the genre - alluded to frequently in other horror movies or television shows (i.e. Buffy, X-files, Supernatural to name a few), and as a result, should be included in the list.

I think that it is somewhat silly to put in the Channard Cenobite, as Pinhead is infinitely more recognizable, and more iconic as such.

Candyman is more of an embarrassment than an icon (a true shame, acutally, considering how creepy the original Clive Barker story was), as is Wishmaster. Neither the general public, nor horror fans have any nostalgia towards either creation.

I feel Predator belongs more in the Science Fiction Icon category because, simply put, the Predator never evoked much of a sense of horror in me. I think the original Terminator, while definitely rooted in Science Fiction, comes closer to horror, but I still would probably stop short of putting him on this template.

Jack Torrance should definitely make the list, as the image of Nicholson saying "Here's Johnny!" through a shattered door is one of the most memorable scenes in any horror movie. In many ways, while he fits the bill for the icon, it's actually the Overlook Hotel itself that's the true monster of the story, but it isn't remembered enough by people.

Interestingly enough, typing all this really makes me think the Amityville House belongs on this list, because it almost behaves as an individual and is definitely iconic - what do others think?

Finally, I think that it's ridiculous that the Living Dead are left off of this list. While not a single monster or entity, there is no doubt that _Night of the Living Dead_ is one of the most important horror movies of all time, and the idea of Zombie apocalypse is pretty much deeply ingrained in the genre because of it. Ahmashar 20:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Regan MacNeil. I added Regan MacNeil, but it was removed with the comment "is a victim". Even though she's a victim, she's also occupied by something evil without a name which makes her head spin. Ask whichever random person if they've heard of this character cause they probably have, ask them to name a horror icon too, and i bet they'll call her "the headspinning girl", which means Regan MacNeil. Bib 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The demon actually is given a namw: Pazuzu...--Invisifan 01:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't remember this. So if someone makes an article on Pazuzu, or redirects the name to Regan MacNeil, it's in. Which option is the best, new article or redirecting? Or don't you want someone who can spin their head in the template? Bib 01:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ben Willis/The Fisherman

Should we add Ben Willis aka The Fisherman from the "I Know What You Did Last Summer" trilogy. He is quite popular and iconic. What do you think? AquafireGal 19:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll add him anyway. It can be removed if necessecary. Thanks. AquafireGal 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde

I think Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde should be added to the template under the Classic section. This character has remained in popular culture ever since the novella Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson in 1886. The Dr. Jekyll/Mr, Hyde character has appeared in a good deal of classic films from the early from the 1930's to 1950's as well as modern films such as Van Helsing. The character had also served as comic book legend Stan Lee's inspiration for the creation of the incredible Hulk. Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde has been in numerous television & film parodies, comic books, serves as inspiration in all media formats and remains a model for the "Mad Scientist-to-Monster" horror character. FF7SquallStrife7 20:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Jigsaw Killer, Amanda Young & Samara Morgan

I think that the inclusion of Jigsaw and Amanda Young in the modern section together would be appropriate, despite their characters being influenced on John Doe.

As well as this, including Samara Morgan with Sadako Yamamura would be appropriate

All the characters mentioned are fan favourites and have paved the way for other characters and themes, and should be included in the category —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blazedupmelpomene (talk • contribs) 06:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

New Members

Should we add King Kong, Godzilla, Jaws, the Blair Witch, and the raptors from the Jurassic Park films? Oh and don't forget Gamera. From User:4444hhhh

No; I don't think you should add them. King Kong, Godzilla, Gamera, and the raptors from Jurassic Park are more of the action/adventure/science fiction genre. I've thought about Jaws, but how are we gonna add it to the list? Put great white shark? And the Blair Witch is not that iconic, in my opinion. Enter Movie 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

For Jaws, we could just either link it to the movie or make a new article. But the raptors, either though they're from a science fiction movie, almost everyone thought they were scary and the first King Kong and Godzilla films were scary. From User:4444hhhh

Gamera is to kid friendy to be on the list same with Godzilla. Should we add Tall Man ?

I wouldn't say "Tall Man" is very iconic, I never heard of him until just now. Would you say he was iconic? AquafireGal 14:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What bout The Thing from The Thing from Another World and Ash from Evil dead .

The Thing is a science fiction character and Ash Williams is not iconic. Enter Movie 14:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I added Ash to the template. He's definetly more iconic than Sadako or Kayako. --Plasma Twa 2 08:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Article

Now since a template, but the problem is, there is no article. Should we make an article? From User:4444hhhh

An article for what? Enter Movie 14:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Iconic Horror of course - not abad idea, but likely to just acumulate OR unfortunately --Invisifan 21:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What kind of template has an article? Enter Movie 03:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

not the template per se, but a general article on the Horror genre & its icons & conventions --Invisifan 14:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm. . . . Okay. Go ahead. Enter Movie 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gremlins

Should Gremlins be added to the template? Personally, I think they're quite iconic. Any thoughts? AquafireGal 14:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm supporting you. Love the idea of adding them. I'll add them. Adam 1412 14:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

They're strictly horror-comedy - like Critters - the Blob would be a better choice (based on the original movie - which borderline puts it in classic -- w/The Fly -- btw) --Invisifan 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

Looking at the template right now, it's a mess. I suggest we overhaul the whole thing & finally decide what to do with people like Jigsaw. The modern icon section is serious POV, some are undisputable icons and some are on the line. The classic part, however, is well done.

As I see it, the following "icons" are the ones that are univerally accepted as icons.

Classic: The Creature From the Black Lagoon, Count Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, The Mummy, The Phantom, and The Wolf Man.

Modern: The Alien, Norman Bates (Who I propose moving to the classic section), Freddy Krueger, Leatherface, The Living Dead, Michael Myers, and Jason Voorhees.

As I said, there isn't much of a problem with the classic section. Maybe add the Bride of Frankenstein?

The modern, though... Here are the "icons" that I think are mostly accepted.

Modern: Chucky, Ghostface, the shark from Jaws, Pinhead.

Anyone else, though, is controversial. There isn't anyone else that really are as notable all of the ones above. I mean, walk up to anyone on the streets and ask who Freddy Krueger is and they'll tell you. Ask them who Pazuzu or Kayako Saeki is and you'll more than likely get a strange look.

For characters like Pazuzu, just because the movie is well known and highly acclaimed doesn't mean the character is iconic. I mean, most people think the demon that possesses Regan is the Devil himself. While everyone knows Michael is the killer in Halloween, they don't know Pazuzu is the villian in The Exorcist.

For Ash Williams, my stance is he should be included. He is different than everyone else on the list because he's the protagonist, but on his page it says he's iconic. And most horror fans know who he is... While he's more notable than Pazuzu probably, the fact that Evil Dead and it's sequels wern't really that well known until Sam hit it big with Spider-Man is a problem.

Jigsaw is simply not iconic. He's been in three popular movies, but I don't see how he's iconic. Seriously, I just don't...

Now, the problems with Kayako Saeki and Sadako Yamamura is that, in the same vein as Pazuzu, people don't know who they are. They know the movies, but not neccessarily the two of them. The thing is is that they're big in Japan, and are probably the two most recognizable J-Horror characters. They are roughly the Japanese equivelents to Jason and Freddy. Their inclusion really should come down to a popular vote, if anything.

That's all I really feel qualified to talk about. Anyone wants to comment, feel free. --Plasma Twa 2 05:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggested on the deletion page that the "modern" section be replaced by a new template of general horror film killers. I'm not good with templates, though, so I can't really make a mock-up on here. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I see why not add Jigsaw to the list. I mean Hannibal Lecter is on the list and he only had 2 movies .

I would see that as possibly more reason to remove Hannibal. On the other hand, Hannibal got books about him. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone in North America knows who Hannibal is. And he had four movies, not two.

I kinda agree with Lenin and McCarthy about the Jigsaw thingy. He's also in four movies (including Saw IV), like Hannibal. He's as iconic as anyone else on the list 'cause of the Saw film series. Those films kind of defined the torture horror genre, in my opinion

I also think Kayako Saeki and Sadako Yamamura deserves to be on the list. When was the last time the template was limited to American, British, Aulstralian, etc. horror icons?

And Ash Williams shouldn't be on the list. All because his page says he's iconic doesn't mean he's neccesarily iconic. Enter Movie 23:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If Ash isn't on the list, then I don't see how Jigsaw is. All because he is the most recognizable horror villain right now doesn't mean he's iconic. --Plasma Twa 2 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since we're having an arguement about this, I think we should make a poll. Enter Movie 01:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible point for adding Sadako again: She is the inspiration for two spinoff characters --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Because is it not Darth vader?

Hi, my question is because it is not Darth vader on this List?

This is a template for "Horror Icons". While Darth Vader is iconic, Star Wars isn't a horror movie. --Plasma Twa 2 04:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone think Predator is iconic? -- Enter Movie 03:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

POLL ON SOME CHARACTERS

I think people are adding too many characters that have not reached the iconic status yet, as in Samara Morgan, Ash Williams, and The Predator; the other character are iconic, in my opinion. People have been adding and deleting them for numerous times, so I decided to make polls on those three characters. Just put Keep if you want the character kept on the template or Delete if you want it off the template.

Samara Morgan

• Delete ―Enter Movie 23:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ash Williams

• Delete ―Enter Movie 23:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Predator

• Delete ―Enter Movie 23:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Polls are evil. May I instead suggest that the entire "modern" section be moved here? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone on the Modern Section are slasher film killers. How about a voting where everyone explains why they want to keep or delete the character? Enter Movie 03:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it really doesn't matter. The thing's already been deleted. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So should we do a voting? —Enter Movie 22:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why those three? Where is Kayako and Jigsaw? Doesn't really matter. Voting doesn't solve anything (The infobox on the World War II thread is a great example). --Plasma Twa 2 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jigsaw has already been voted to stay on the template; look at the archived section. Kayako, sure why not? We'll start this whole voting thing over. Anymore characters you wanna add to suit your needs?

By the way, what does a WWII infobox have to do with this template? —Enter Movie 15:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You want to vote to get people removed. The people over on the WWII thread voted to have no countries in the infobox, but here we are. Polls never count because no one listens to them. Jigsaw may have been voted on, but it seems like there is still a large amount of people who don't want him on. A poll isn't going to work. --Plasma Twa 2 22:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to get people removed — what does that mean anyway? — 'cause you can edit anytime. I'm just trying to make the template better by reaching a consensus. I don't want people having editing wars and stuff. But oh well. —Enter Movie 22:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

King Kong?

I believe King Kong deserves to be on the template. He's a well-known iconic horror character, so I'll just add him. —Enter Movie 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If King Kong is on the list, I see no reason not to add Godzilla. --Plasma Twa 2 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, I've actually thought about it. King Kong is a adventure/horror film. But he's more an action/adventure character. By the way, Godzilla is mostly science fiction. —Enter Movie 16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither of them really fit. Both original movies were probably considered pretty scary back in the day, but in comparison the newest ones are no way horror. The large monster movies, though, are often considered to be horror movies (At least a few), and King Kong and Godzilla are no doubt the most famous and influential of them. I can't speak for Kong very well, but nn the case of Godzilla, he's one of the most well known and iconic movie characters period, so any genre he was a part of he'd be considered iconic. --Plasma Twa 2 01:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I say that Godzilla should definately get into the classic part of it. I mean, seriously, he is more iconic then the Alien and his first movie was a technical horror movie, as I remember.

Pods

Shouldn't we have the pod people from Invasion of the Body Snatchers on here?- JustPhil 10:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... I respect your opinion, but I don't really think they're iconic. If you'd walk around the streets and asked people who Pods are, do you really think they'll answer yes? —Enter Movie 15:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What Is An Iconic Horror Character?

Okay, I feel the need to bring this subject up because the template right now is recognizable mostly to the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and several other English-speaking countries. I'm not saying that they aren't iconic, I'm just saying that some of the characters on the template are probably not iconic to some non-English-speaking countries.

An icon is "somebody or something widely or uncritically admired." It does not limit to icons mostly recognizable to English-speaking countries. The characters on the template should be univerally iconic.

So, with that said, I think that characters such as Ghostface, Count Orlok, The Invisible Man, and Hannibal Lecter should be deleted because they're not really universally iconic. I'm not sure about some others though. — Enter Movie 14:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I disagree with is Count Orlok. He was "THE" first vampire to hit the silver screen, that makes him rather iconic. Plus, his shadow creeping across the wall is one of the most recognizable scenes from Nosferatu. Just because you might not know who he is, doesn't mean he isn't iconic. Technically, every one of these names needs a source, because it's all subjective information anyway. You cannot say "Jason is iconic, but Hannibal is not", unless you have a source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

You know, I did have a hard time thinking about Count Orlok. I first saw him in Spongebob Squarepants, but they called him Nosferatu. I think more people know him as Noferatu, but that's just me. So, I can see how Count Orlok is iconic.

And about the other characters, it's just common sense. If you go to, say, China or Russia and ask people if Hannibal is iconic, wouldn't they probably say no? I mean, they might know what The Silence of the Lambs, Red Dragon, Hannibal, and Hannibal Rising are, but I don't think they neccessarily know the character; it's much like The Exorcist and Pazuzu. The same with Ghostface, although I'm not sure about The Invisible Man. — Enter Movie 15:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Ghostface should be on. He and his movie were what revived the horror genre, after all. --Plasma Twa 2 01:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think it's time to finally decide whether or not Godzilla and King Kong qualify. Nowadays they are seen as more science fiction, as well as comic characters, but back in the day they were the scariest things of the time (Or so I have heard). They both easily meet the iconic part, it's just a matter of figuring out if we go by their first movie or their last. --Plasma Twa 2 04:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ghostface is probably one of the most recognizable horror characters 'cause he did kinda re-defined the slasher genre. But I don't think most people know his name as Ghostface. Was the name even mentioned in the films?.... I don't remember.

Godzilla and King Kong are probably more of science fiction/action/adventure characters, in my opinion. I mean, they used to be scary, but I don't think people consider them horror characters anymore. — Enter Movie 00:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ash Williams

First off, I would really like to know why he’s on the template. There are several people who suggested Ash to be on the template, but none of them has come up with a good reason of why he should be on it — besides, there has only been one person who gave a couple of reasons but they weren’t good.

Another point is that Ash is merely a cult figure. Cult figures are only “popular or fashionable among a devoted group of enthusiasts.” Well, you might say that Ash is not a cult figure. However, the Evil Dead trilogy has only made about between 32 to 33 million dollars when adjusted for inflation. Therefore, many people and critics consider them cult films, like Donnie Darko, and since Ash is in cult films, he is a cult figure. He may be a cultic icon, but that's not what this template's about, yes?

So, with that said I think Ash should be deleted from the template. Anyone who disagrees may express their opinion and explain why he should be on the template and how he's iconic, without going off-topic, because I’m having a hard time seeing why’s he on there. — Enter Movie 15:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

He is one of the most recognizable horror movie heroes, which is something because it is a genre dominated by murderers and zombies. Some of his lines are quoted endlessly. And for them to consider him to be in the sequel for Freddy Vs. Jason is something, is it not? --Plasma Twa 2 19:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

He is not one of the most recognizable horror movie heroes. He is a cult figure who is recognizable mostly to people who watched the films 'cause I doubt Japanese, Chinese, Italian, Colombian, etc. people know Ash Williams. And the "Some of his lines are quoted endlessly" part is just downright false. I could go to Mexico and shout out "Hail to the king, baby!" or something like that, and I wouldn't be suprised if people thought I was a psycho. Also, he was considered to be in FvJ2, but as long as Sam Raimi decides against it, Ash is never gonna be in a Freddy Vs. Jason 2 film, so he's not recognizable yet. — Enter Movie 01:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

He is as recognizable as the two japanese girls you try to put on this list constantly. And I didn't say he was in the sequel. I said he was being considered, which is more then anyone else outside of Micheal can say. --Plasma Twa 2 01:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadako and Kayako? Why do you think I quit on them? Because almost everyone put English-speaking countries' icons. As I've said before, the template does not limit to only English-speaking countries' icons, and Ash was never universally iconic. I don't think The Evil Dead trilogy was shown in non-American theaters at their time, so I doubt many non-English speaking people know who he is. Now, if Ash was in the Freddy Vs. Jason sequel film, that would be different. But he's just being considered. — Enter Movie 03:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The icons we have from english language movies (Now) are all from world famous horror movies. Absolutely no one who knows anything about horror movies knows who Freddy or Micheal are, especially in the case of Jason, who is argueably one of the most famous movie characters period. Now, while people have seen Saw, or seem Ringu/The Ring, and they may be popular, they are nowhere near the level of Friday the 13th or Halloween, and hence, the villains aren't.

Now that said, that makes me wonder about Pinhead's inclusion now. I think he should be on (He is way popular in horror circles, as well as instantly recognizable), but, once we get to the international notability thing... --Plasma Twa 2 03:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. So we have come to an agreement and conclusion that Ash is no more, right? By the way, I don't really know about Pinhead. I mean, he's pretty cool, but I'm not sure if he's recognizable in non-English-speaking countries, though. You may delete him if you want, unless someone comes by and gives a good reason of why he should be on the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enter Movie (talk • contribs) 04:47:26, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Archive 1

Archive 2