I think this discussion is more fit for the university classroom. And one thing I learned from the university classroom is Gothic horror. And speaking of goofy horror, the mascot horror genre says hi.
2:22 hitchcock essentially created the thriller genre, some call psycho the first slasher film and it's not gory at all, although people have false memories of it being bloody there's barely a hint of blood in a single scene
Yup. It plays with the imagination, which is what thrillers are about IMO. It's not so much about on-screen violence, but the expectation and potential of it, which causes uneasy and anxiety in the viewer. You're not sure whether something will happen or not, which makes it a thriller. In horror, aside from fake-outs, you're darn sure when something's gonna happen.
honestly an example of these to an even greater extreme would be the original texas chainsaw massacre. it's visceral and upsetting and disturbing, obviously, but just in terms of actual on-screen bloodshed and violence there's surprisingly little. arguably the worst "gore" that you actually see is leatherface dropping the chainsaw on himself lol. so just in terms of like, pints of blood spilled, something like danganronpa is an order of magnitude more qualified to be in the "horror" genre.
Being scared isn't the same thing as being horrified. I can be horrified at bodies laying at the side of the road after a terrible accident, but I'm not scared of them. Horror media is meant to give the consumer a feeling of wrongness. Often that feeling of wrongness also elicits terror because we like to feel like we understand the world, but it doesn't have to. There are plenty of horror films that aren't really scary. Take The Fly (1985), for example. David Cronenberg does a great job guiding the audience through a downward spiral of disgust and revulsion as Jeff Goldblum slowly turns into a fly throughout the course of the film, but it's not actually scary. It's gross and weird and horrifying. That's the nature of horror media. It's not there to scare you, per se, though it might be a byproduct. It's there to disturb you in some way.
Chat be confusing horror with terror. Horror is more than (jumpscare with loud noises). The whole Lovecraft canon is based on cosmic horror - the idea of gazing into infinity and understanding how infinitesimally meaningless your own life measures in comparison. The whole point is you never see the elder gods, but the very idea of them drives you to insanity. No monster jumping out and yelling "boo", yet it gets under your skin and keeps you up at night in fear nonetheless. Not terror, but definitely horror. Danganronpa and the Zero Escape series are psychological horror. The horror of Danganronpa is the idea of how easily even the greatest of humanity can turn against each other in a moment of panic.
Once you reach a certain age (old, like I am) and the things that used to scare you just do not work anymore due to perspective or experience (a looming slasher, a hunting alien, generally threats of death or dismemberment) you see horror differently. It is not about the threat but the uncertainty. It is about loss of control and autonomy or even questioning your perception of reality. Horror should disturb you on some level and make you question whether you are as safe, strong or secure as you think you are and that is not limited to the physical. An example I can think of is the movie Skinamarink: some people did not find it "scary" but I saw someone sum it up as "I watched it, wasn't really scared but thought it was okay, and then proceeded to have the worst night's sleep of my life."
If Fauna likes Lovecraft stuff, perhaps she could check out William Hope Hodgeson. And horror is expansive. I think Zardoz is horror because of Sean Connery's chest hair alone. Now THAT would be a great halloween watchalong!
Horror comes in many forms. And it's important to remember that what may have been scary a decade ago, may be considered laughable today. For example, look at the first ever horror film produced back in the late 1890s, "Devil's Castle". You watch it today, with all the silly little bits of people appearing and disappearing, and witch's dancing around, and it's quite goofy. But back in the day, that would have made audiences feel like the dark occult was about to come alive and destroy their souls. In other words, perspective and context are what make horror scary or not, not the fact that it's classified as horror.
They used to be, but they've been part of popular culture for the last 20 years to the degree that no one really finds them scary anymore, at least in the way they're used. The original content may be scary, and the rare seriously made thing, but when you see squidheads in a JRPG, no one thinks they're scary, it's just common chaff to be grinded for exp. Which, when you think about it, is pretty crazy. From the philosophical and deep thought based "isn't the size of the universe horrifying?" kind of thing to just generic monsters... what a journey. 😀
@@Tiavals Something not being scary doesn't make it stop being a part of horror as a genre, though. Even despite the fact that the underlying themes of artificial resuscitation and organ replacement are just facets of normal medicine, Frankenstein's monster is still a staple of the horror genre just as much as any Lovecraftian beast is. *_The Munsters_* & *_The Addams Family_* did pop culture stuff with horror icons decades ago - but those things are ALL still a part of the horror genre no matter how much they become familiar to a broad audience.
@@PierceArner The difference is the treatment of the material, IMO. Frankenstein's Monster isn't scary because of medical stuff, but because the monster is artificially alive, independent of the body parts, and has its own mind, goals, etc. A sort of man-made abomination rather than "real natural/god-made life". (Although the scariness depends on whether it's the novel or the film version, since they're almost the opposites on WHY they're scary. Still, it's the treatment of the material that makes it horror, rather than the subject matter as such) Now, "pop horror" is a different matter, where recognized horror tropes go and are treated in a mundane or comical way. They're not part of the horror genre to me, but are still in the "horror sphere of interest", so to speak. But I suppose it depends how you wish to treat the words. "Horror comedy" in itself is an impossibility from my point of view, but I get the point of it, it's pretty much the pop horror I mentioned above.
@@TiavalsPop horror is 100% horror. It’s literally in the name. Just because something is not presented in a scary way does not mean it won’t be perceived as such by people not acquainted at all. Regardless of whether or not the subject matter is meant to be parodied, it is intrinsically terrifying to human beings. Besides, most horror comedy, at least those worth their salt, had scenes that are genuinely terrifying despite often being played for laughs along the way. Poor Things is a great example of this.
@@Tiavals Horror comedy & pop horror are still intrinsically interconnected to the horror genre, and whether or not something is horror "to you" doesn't reclassify its genre. I think you're more focused on differentiation of horror in a story theme vs. horror as a setting. Either can make it a part of the horror genre, but one or the other may not align to an individual perception of what feels like horror to you. The themes of existential horror & body horror you described with Frankenstein's monster are both small parts of the core staples of Lovecraftian cosmic horror in beings of an incomprehensibly alien consciousness that are wholly non-human to the point that they're often not even alive in the same capacity to how we perceive that concept. Just because zombies are the go-to generic cannon fodder of horror games & films doesn't mean no one is afraid of them or that it stops them from being a horror element. Horror films even being recursively self-aware of their own tropes of the genre like *_Scream_* or *_Cabin in the Woods_* and even horror films that feel more absurd and over-the-top like *_Dead Alive_* are built in to the wider genre that takes comedic ridiculousness as a part of the expected progression like *_Evil Dead_* into *_Army of Darkness_* for example. Horror is a VERY flexible genre even outside of anything being flatly scary because of how it evolved with an audience who became familiar with and thus less afraid of some of its core themes and got absurd with them and pushed to blur those boundaries on purpose.
All i gotta say is that jump scares are cheap garbage Jump scares to horror is like ubisoft filler icons in an open world game; or bethesda radiant quests in an rpg Dumb slop
this is what they call "semantics". a Cthulhu plushie might be horror-themed but is it "horror"? not really. if a movie had some theme of comedy in it, like it's about a killer clown, imo that doesn't make it a comedy
See that's the thing though, it depends on the circumstance but the label is still there no matter what. Like let's say I have a sale of plushies and I have to organize them into categories then that Cthulhu plushie WOULD go into the Horror category would it not? Even if the plushie itself isn't scary the horror label would still apply.
@@Skeiths depends on the limitations of the taxonomy, you'd pick the closest one independent of how well it fit the item. and not that it's all that important but what I was just saying that there's technically a difference between being horror-themed vs being squarely in the horror-genre. some stuff straddles many topics, black comedy movie might be equal parts comedy and drama or horror with maybe a side of a romantic theme without fitting in the genre of romance movie.
Well yeah it's a creative field and we're talking about classifications that we made the fuck up, of course it requires the use of feelings besides for what extensively is a water-cooler side type conversation without a script or prepared arguments phrases like "feels like" "vibes" can literally mean the feeling that something evokes within oneself or also I can't quite articulate what I want to say
The Steam labels are meaningless. Every single game is labeled at least a dozen things it isn't, like "Turn Based Strategy" when the game has any sort of pause style gameplay, or "Roleplaying Game" when the game has numbers on a sheet. Also, Danganronpa and 999 aren't horror, they're "nonsensical pretentious convoluted" games. It's a time honored genre in Japan. 😉 (Not so much a dig at the genre, but more of an observation of the popular writing style that "auteur" creators in Japan are commonly associated with. Hideo Kojima is a prime example, everything is 10x as complicated as it should be, which makes everything feel like a farce, but is also very interesting at the same time since it explores lots of weird stuff in quick succession that normally would be limited to 1 topic per game/book/film)
I agree with you on the Nonsensical convoluted games from Japan. I watch some LPs of the Ace Attorney Series, and when they want to turn up the stakes, they just make everything completely convoluted to where things don't really add up at the end.
![Fubuki watches Endgame [Hololive/ENG]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PR7NZh3OGcg/mqdefault.jpg)
![Fubuki watches Endgame [Hololive/ENG]](/img/tr.png)
"Horror doesn't have to be scary" - Fauna's core statement is correct.
Horror is an aesthetic
I think this discussion is more fit for the university classroom. And one thing I learned from the university classroom is Gothic horror. And speaking of goofy horror, the mascot horror genre says hi.
There's also the debate of horror vs terror which I quite like.
@@nishilim I remember discussing that in class less as a debate and more as clearly defined terms for horror lessons.
Har har har har har
@@S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-Strelok HUR HUR HUR HUR
2:22 hitchcock essentially created the thriller genre, some call psycho the first slasher film and it's not gory at all, although people have false memories of it being bloody there's barely a hint of blood in a single scene
Yup. It plays with the imagination, which is what thrillers are about IMO. It's not so much about on-screen violence, but the expectation and potential of it, which causes uneasy and anxiety in the viewer. You're not sure whether something will happen or not, which makes it a thriller. In horror, aside from fake-outs, you're darn sure when something's gonna happen.
honestly an example of these to an even greater extreme would be the original texas chainsaw massacre. it's visceral and upsetting and disturbing, obviously, but just in terms of actual on-screen bloodshed and violence there's surprisingly little. arguably the worst "gore" that you actually see is leatherface dropping the chainsaw on himself lol.
so just in terms of like, pints of blood spilled, something like danganronpa is an order of magnitude more qualified to be in the "horror" genre.
She is spitting complete facts.
I hope chat isn't like "horror = jumpscares" or something
I think some people are caught on the theatrics here. Something can be horrific without all the horror movie violins and dark lighting and jumpscares.
Fauna is right and all the people arguing with her are wrong.
"scary" is too subjective.
Being scared isn't the same thing as being horrified. I can be horrified at bodies laying at the side of the road after a terrible accident, but I'm not scared of them. Horror media is meant to give the consumer a feeling of wrongness. Often that feeling of wrongness also elicits terror because we like to feel like we understand the world, but it doesn't have to. There are plenty of horror films that aren't really scary. Take The Fly (1985), for example. David Cronenberg does a great job guiding the audience through a downward spiral of disgust and revulsion as Jeff Goldblum slowly turns into a fly throughout the course of the film, but it's not actually scary. It's gross and weird and horrifying. That's the nature of horror media. It's not there to scare you, per se, though it might be a byproduct. It's there to disturb you in some way.
Chat be confusing horror with terror. Horror is more than (jumpscare with loud noises). The whole Lovecraft canon is based on cosmic horror - the idea of gazing into infinity and understanding how infinitesimally meaningless your own life measures in comparison. The whole point is you never see the elder gods, but the very idea of them drives you to insanity. No monster jumping out and yelling "boo", yet it gets under your skin and keeps you up at night in fear nonetheless. Not terror, but definitely horror.
Danganronpa and the Zero Escape series are psychological horror. The horror of Danganronpa is the idea of how easily even the greatest of humanity can turn against each other in a moment of panic.
Once you reach a certain age (old, like I am) and the things that used to scare you just do not work anymore due to perspective or experience (a looming slasher, a hunting alien, generally threats of death or dismemberment) you see horror differently. It is not about the threat but the uncertainty. It is about loss of control and autonomy or even questioning your perception of reality. Horror should disturb you on some level and make you question whether you are as safe, strong or secure as you think you are and that is not limited to the physical.
An example I can think of is the movie Skinamarink: some people did not find it "scary" but I saw someone sum it up as "I watched it, wasn't really scared but thought it was okay, and then proceeded to have the worst night's sleep of my life."
If we use that defination UNO is also Horror game. Which I'm fully agree.
3:48 Spooky is already a genre, isn't that what the Goosebumps stuff is all about?
Fauna is so correct here
Discussing the line between horror and thriller.
If Fauna likes Lovecraft stuff, perhaps she could check out William Hope Hodgeson. And horror is expansive. I think Zardoz is horror because of Sean Connery's chest hair alone. Now THAT would be a great halloween watchalong!
Midwit saplings have made their way to the comments smh
Horror comes in many forms. And it's important to remember that what may have been scary a decade ago, may be considered laughable today. For example, look at the first ever horror film produced back in the late 1890s, "Devil's Castle". You watch it today, with all the silly little bits of people appearing and disappearing, and witch's dancing around, and it's quite goofy. But back in the day, that would have made audiences feel like the dark occult was about to come alive and destroy their souls. In other words, perspective and context are what make horror scary or not, not the fact that it's classified as horror.
Although she spoke the truth, the people rejected her message
3:25 - Lovecraftian themes are literally their own type of horror and basically typified Cosmic Horror. What is chat on about?
They used to be, but they've been part of popular culture for the last 20 years to the degree that no one really finds them scary anymore, at least in the way they're used. The original content may be scary, and the rare seriously made thing, but when you see squidheads in a JRPG, no one thinks they're scary, it's just common chaff to be grinded for exp.
Which, when you think about it, is pretty crazy. From the philosophical and deep thought based "isn't the size of the universe horrifying?" kind of thing to just generic monsters... what a journey. 😀
@@Tiavals Something not being scary doesn't make it stop being a part of horror as a genre, though.
Even despite the fact that the underlying themes of artificial resuscitation and organ replacement are just facets of normal medicine, Frankenstein's monster is still a staple of the horror genre just as much as any Lovecraftian beast is. *_The Munsters_* & *_The Addams Family_* did pop culture stuff with horror icons decades ago - but those things are ALL still a part of the horror genre no matter how much they become familiar to a broad audience.
@@PierceArner The difference is the treatment of the material, IMO.
Frankenstein's Monster isn't scary because of medical stuff, but because the monster is artificially alive, independent of the body parts, and has its own mind, goals, etc. A sort of man-made abomination rather than "real natural/god-made life".
(Although the scariness depends on whether it's the novel or the film version, since they're almost the opposites on WHY they're scary. Still, it's the treatment of the material that makes it horror, rather than the subject matter as such)
Now, "pop horror" is a different matter, where recognized horror tropes go and are treated in a mundane or comical way. They're not part of the horror genre to me, but are still in the "horror sphere of interest", so to speak.
But I suppose it depends how you wish to treat the words. "Horror comedy" in itself is an impossibility from my point of view, but I get the point of it, it's pretty much the pop horror I mentioned above.
@@TiavalsPop horror is 100% horror. It’s literally in the name. Just because something is not presented in a scary way does not mean it won’t be perceived as such by people not acquainted at all. Regardless of whether or not the subject matter is meant to be parodied, it is intrinsically terrifying to human beings. Besides, most horror comedy, at least those worth their salt, had scenes that are genuinely terrifying despite often being played for laughs along the way. Poor Things is a great example of this.
@@Tiavals Horror comedy & pop horror are still intrinsically interconnected to the horror genre, and whether or not something is horror "to you" doesn't reclassify its genre. I think you're more focused on differentiation of horror in a story theme vs. horror as a setting. Either can make it a part of the horror genre, but one or the other may not align to an individual perception of what feels like horror to you.
The themes of existential horror & body horror you described with Frankenstein's monster are both small parts of the core staples of Lovecraftian cosmic horror in beings of an incomprehensibly alien consciousness that are wholly non-human to the point that they're often not even alive in the same capacity to how we perceive that concept. Just because zombies are the go-to generic cannon fodder of horror games & films doesn't mean no one is afraid of them or that it stops them from being a horror element.
Horror films even being recursively self-aware of their own tropes of the genre like *_Scream_* or *_Cabin in the Woods_* and even horror films that feel more absurd and over-the-top like *_Dead Alive_* are built in to the wider genre that takes comedic ridiculousness as a part of the expected progression like *_Evil Dead_* into *_Army of Darkness_* for example.
Horror is a VERY flexible genre even outside of anything being flatly scary because of how it evolved with an audience who became familiar with and thus less afraid of some of its core themes and got absurd with them and pushed to blur those boundaries on purpose.
What is the timestamp of this clip in the stream? Thank you
found it again!
it's at 3:15:04 of the source stream
All i gotta say is that jump scares are cheap garbage
Jump scares to horror is like ubisoft filler icons in an open world game; or bethesda radiant quests in an rpg
Dumb slop
this is what they call "semantics". a Cthulhu plushie might be horror-themed but is it "horror"? not really.
if a movie had some theme of comedy in it, like it's about a killer clown, imo that doesn't make it a comedy
See that's the thing though, it depends on the circumstance but the label is still there no matter what. Like let's say I have a sale of plushies and I have to organize them into categories then that Cthulhu plushie WOULD go into the Horror category would it not? Even if the plushie itself isn't scary the horror label would still apply.
@@Skeiths depends on the limitations of the taxonomy, you'd pick the closest one independent of how well it fit the item.
and not that it's all that important but what I was just saying that there's technically a difference between being horror-themed vs being squarely in the horror-genre. some stuff straddles many topics, black comedy movie might be equal parts comedy and drama or horror with maybe a side of a romantic theme without fitting in the genre of romance movie.
The moment she said she "feels" yeah fact goes out the window
There is no “fact” about what movies are classified with which genres. It literally is all about feelings.
Edit: or games.
Lmao as if "horror has to be scary" is objective in any way. That's 100% vibes brother.
Well yeah it's a creative field and we're talking about classifications that we made the fuck up, of course it requires the use of feelings besides for what extensively is a water-cooler side type conversation without a script or prepared arguments phrases like "feels like" "vibes" can literally mean the feeling that something evokes within oneself or also I can't quite articulate what I want to say
The Steam labels are meaningless. Every single game is labeled at least a dozen things it isn't, like "Turn Based Strategy" when the game has any sort of pause style gameplay, or "Roleplaying Game" when the game has numbers on a sheet.
Also, Danganronpa and 999 aren't horror, they're "nonsensical pretentious convoluted" games. It's a time honored genre in Japan. 😉
(Not so much a dig at the genre, but more of an observation of the popular writing style that "auteur" creators in Japan are commonly associated with. Hideo Kojima is a prime example, everything is 10x as complicated as it should be, which makes everything feel like a farce, but is also very interesting at the same time since it explores lots of weird stuff in quick succession that normally would be limited to 1 topic per game/book/film)
I agree with you on the Nonsensical convoluted games from Japan. I watch some LPs of the Ace Attorney Series, and when they want to turn up the stakes, they just make everything completely convoluted to where things don't really add up at the end.
She has a point, a wrong one, but it's definitely a point that she has.