Horror Trivia

[GhostlyChills]

What is the difference between intellectual horror and non intellectual horror? give some books or even movies that have been successful between the two groups. Anyone? :mad:

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/4329/carnival11.jpg

[fuglystick]

They both work on different levels.

For example, I'm a fan of the Asian gore films, ala "The Machine Girl" and "Tokyo Gore Police." Atmosphere, suspense, and plot take a back seat to excessive, cartoonish gore and mayhem. However, most of those films are hardly non intellectual, as they generally contain heaping amounts of satire and social commentary.

[Doc Faustus]

Intellectual is not a genre, it is a mark of quality. If something is devoid of intelligence, it is stupid and therefore a failure. Failure does not denote genre. When was the last time you went to a bookstore and saw a section for "Dull Fantasy" or "Mystery Novels you figure out on page 7"?

[fuglystick]

Intellectual is not a genre, it is a mark of quality. If something is devoid of intelligence, it is stupid and therefore a failure. Failure does not denote genre. When was the last time you went to a bookstore and saw a section for "Dull Fantasy" or "Mystery Novels you figure out on page 7"?

Yes, and also no. Entertainment does not have to be intellectually stimulating to be effective; many types of entertainment exist on a purely visceral level.

[Ferox13]

Intellectual is not a genre, it is a mark of quality. If something is devoid of intelligence, it is stupid and therefore a failure. 7"?

I would find it hard to describe Blood Sucking Freaks, Blood feast or Robot Monster as Interlectual but I do enjoy all 3 films and wouldn't consider them 'failures'.

Hell I'm a big fan of old Warner Brother cartoons - sure they're clever and well though out but are they thought provoking definally not.

[Doc Faustus]

I find Blood Feast very intellectually stimulating. I don't necessarily mean intellectually stimulating, but if there's no entry point for dialogue, nothing to think about at all, something is an abject failure. Things that are viscerally stimulating ARE intelligent entertainment. It means it has some kind of spiritual and intellectual core. It takes vision to make something visceral.

[Ferox13]

I find Blood Feast very intellectually stimulating. I don't necessarily mean intellectually stimulating,

I don't get your point at all.

I do understand that you seem to find an 'intellectual and spiritual core' in a film that was meant to be nothing more than a money making exploitation film that substituted gore for sex when the nudey cutey market dryed up. I fail under stnad how is can be 'an intellectual film' when it does nothing to appeal to the intellect.

There is an innocent charm about Blood Feast but its hardly thought provoking or 'spiritual'.

[Doc Faustus]

I think Bloodfeast is very thought-provoking. I could write an essay on Bloodfeast as easily as I could several so-called art films.

[Ferox13]

I think Bloodfeast is very thought-provoking. I could write an essay on Bloodfeast as easily as I could several so-called art films.

I'm sure you could - you been good with words and such like :-) but what i'm trying to say is just because you intellectual perceive the film it doesn't instill the film with intellectual properties.

Another example - you could write an intellectual piece on the role of Afro Americans roles in Tom and Jerry as an intellectual piece - the essay would be drawing comparsions to comtempory culture and that of when it was made but this wouldn't mean that the Tom & Jerry cartoon is in itself an intectual piece of work..

On a side note I think i spelled 'Intellectual' as least twice in the above piece :-)