This is one of the most asinine conversations I've had on the Internet and that's saying something.
Ultimate Horror Film Thread
- Thread starter Piff Henderson
- Start date
Ninja really in here saying he doesn't "look at any flick from the 2000s as horror" but wants to argue about someone calling The Toxic Avenger a horror comedy.
My guy, you had the biggest hot take in this thread's history but want to argue about uncontroversial minutiae.
My guy, you had the biggest hot take in this thread's history but want to argue about uncontroversial minutiae.
Now you lying.. I didn't say these were all slasher films . I literally said I'm a fan of horror films . I mentioned old horror flicks. You argue like a politician and only post part of whole paragraphs.. than you literally try to act like each sentence is part of the same topic.. you trying to put my comments of 80/90 flicks and make it seem like I described them as slasher filmsMy guy, you're the one who listed it alongside films you consider to be slasher films.
Naw you been bullshitting half through this convo.. I told you to ask Google if toxic avenger is a superhero film and you clearly didn't.. you just posted toxic avenger and it posted some random shit . You called evil dead a slasher flick which it wasn't.. than try to spin it like I called it a slasher flick when I never did I clearly said I was a fan of 80 flicks and put evil dead 2 in the same sentence.. you question why lil shop of horror was sci Fi I clearly explained why, you tried to underplay why spiderman was obviously more sci Fi than toxic when I pointed out all the science connection and there was pretty much nothing other than toxic waste with toxic avenger, you been pulling lil statements I made like they were all on the same topic.. straight bullshit
Nah it's a action, comedy, horror, sci Fi film remember that's what that site told you.. remember besides the toxic waste you haven't proven why it's sci Fi, it's a horror to you but have yet to explain why it would be considered a horror.. remember I clearly explained why lil shop of horror was a sci Fi horror and pointed various points to prove it .. her being from outer space, a whole alien invasion plan/plot, I even posted the original ending that was dark to audience with the alien invasion being completely successful.. let's see your points and prove them
Do you not read what you write? In the very same post, you had literally just got finished explaining why you didn't consider Terrifier a slasher and then listed the films in that genre you preferred which included slasher films.
How else is someone supposed to interpret that given the context clues?
This was the whole convo and damn tablet fucked up my last comment.. the last line was supposed to say and other old school genre films like evil dead 2.. notice the line "other old school kills like evil dead 2 " doesn't even make sense
I just posted how the tablet fucked up and was supposed to say other genre films like evil dead 2. Other kills like evil dead 2 doesn't even make sense.. sometimes the tablet completely fucks up on comments
Stop lying. You didn't say ask Google shit. You said I "avoided" Google labeling TTA a superhero film. I didn't. I said Evil Dead had elements of a slasher film along with other elements like paranormal elements. And you put it in a list with slasher films right after stating why you didn't believe Terrifier was a slasher.
I never questioned Little Shop of Horrors being a sci-fi. I asked if it's considered a sci-fi, why couldn't TTA. Lastly, I said both Spider-Man and Toxie had sci-fi ORIGINS which you continue to evade.
It's obvious you're lying because you haven't bothered to actually quote me like I have you. Instead, you post your interpretations of what I wrote which is called straw manning. Nice try though.
Last edited:
Understood. Shit happens. But you can at least see why someone can take that for you including Evil Dead in the slasher category.
I Love how you move the goalpost here. First it's consensus that matters ("No one considers it a horror") and when I prove that wrong, I'm now supposed to make a point-by-point list explaining why I think it's a horror film. If you actually read what people write, you'd know I considered it to be a horror because it features a monstrosity killing people in gory detail.
Honestly, stay mad at IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and every other entity that doesn't share your view on the very important subject of film genre categorization.
This is what happens when you are being pedantic and read someone's words not in an effort to have a fruitful discussion, but just to point out what you believe are errors.
I would've been more than happy to just concede that TTA wasn't a horror film, since I was writing from my perspective as a kid, but you got pissy and insulting and so I had to show you that, yes, it's considered a horror by many people.
So at what point did I supposedly deny that Little Shop of Horrors was a sci-fi? This shows I acknowledged it being a sci-fi so there was no need to even point out why it's a sci-fi.
This is demonstrably wrong. The original is considered a horror comedy and it's comedy elements were in the advertisement for the film.
Here you didn't seem to realize the Broadway show was also a musical. Only the original 1960s film wasn't a musical. The Broadway adaptation has always been a musical and the film version was based on the Broadway musical.
You're really in no position to try school anyone when you've gotten so much incorrect.
Dude I've been in threads in previous yrs literally talking about shop of horrors .. From talking about the of film, to talking about the plays, to showing the 80s original ending, to talking about the 1980s film.. People know I say Steve Martin should've gotten an Oscar for his dentist role in the flick, I've posted his song various times throughout the yr, posted the ending of the plays, showed it was multiple plays, even talked about people suggesting Audrey being the devil, etc.. This ain't the first horror thread, this ain't the first little shop of horror post I ever made.. So to say I didn't know it was a musical sounds dumb as hell when I've posted clips of the musical especially the part where he gets eaten.. Hell playa might have been in 1 of those threads.. And as far as the original being a horror comedy could of fooled me cause it really wasn't funny and definitely darkSo at what point did I supposedly deny that Little Shop of Horrors was a sci-fi? This shows I acknowledged it being a sci-fi so there was no need to even point out why it's a sci-fi.
This is demonstrably wrong. The original is considered a horror comedy and it's comedy elements were in the advertisement for the film.
Here you didn't seem to realize the Broadway show was also a musical. Only the original 1960s film wasn't a musical. The Broadway adaptation has always been a musical and the film version was based on the Broadway musical.
You're really in no position to try school anyone when you've gotten so much incorrect.
Lets see if you can find the funny
Here's the trailer hahaha so hilarious smh it isn't
Have you actually seen the 1960 film? I actually did yrss ago definitely wasn't funny.. But maybe it just wasn't funny to me
Last edited:
Also to say I didn't know the Broadway plays Was musicals sounds dumb for the simple fact for yrs they use to run little shop of horror Broadway commercials daily for yrs here like they did the cats the Broadway play.. It clearly was showing you it was a musical in the commercialsSo at what point did I supposedly deny that Little Shop of Horrors was a sci-fi? This shows I acknowledged it being a sci-fi so there was no need to even point out why it's a sci-fi.
This is demonstrably wrong. The original is considered a horror comedy and it's comedy elements were in the advertisement for the film.
Here you didn't seem to realize the Broadway show was also a musical. Only the original 1960s film wasn't a musical. The Broadway adaptation has always been a musical and the film version was based on the Broadway musical.
You're really in no position to try school anyone when you've gotten so much incorrect.
You called the film "the musical" as if the Broadway production wasn't also a musical. I mean if you're such a big fan of the series, have you seen it on Broadway? If so, how was it?
And the fact remains that the original is a comedy horror and was advertised as a comedy. Whether you, personally, find it funny or not doesn't change that fact. I don't find Pauly Shore films funny but they're still (shitty) comedies.
If I post old clips of Laurel & Hardy, Abbot & Costello, and The Three Stooges and you don't find them funny, does that mean they're no cease being comedies?
What a goofy line of reasoning. What's considered funny changes over time but that doesn't mean comedies stop being comedies because they're no longer funny. And to post a trailer that even advertises that it's a comedy and still say in all seriousness the film "had no comedic elements" is, itself, hilarious.
What a goofy line of reasoning. What's considered funny changes over time but that doesn't mean comedies stop being comedies because they're no longer funny. And to post a trailer that even advertises that it's a comedy and still say in all seriousness the film "had no comedic elements" is, itself, hilarious.
Was the 86 movie a musical? Was the 1960 film a musical.. Since we were talking about both movies I wanted to separate the 2 by calling the 86 film the musical.. Once again just like the Broadway show cats had commercials in NY for yrs so did the shop of horrors musical broadway.. I was a fan of the movie saw it in theatre when it was released, when it came to home video got it on vhs.. I'm not a person that goes to Broadway shows.. I think I went to 2 in my life.. 1 was the og mama I want to sing and I forget the other.. Oh yeah in 2020, 2018, and even as far as 2012 there literally threads of me talking about oil shop of horrors, me being a fan of Steve Martin cause of it, me saying Rick moranis best movie to me was lol shop of horrors and yes me referring this as the man musical.. Yes playahatian was in at least 1 of those threads
Laughed at 3 stooges, laughed at abbot and costello, want to throw in I love lucy, honeymooners also
I said it was darker.. Noticed no happy ending.. That's why the 86 film original ending got pulled cause people didn't like the dark ending and they made it more happier
Does this clip make you break out in bouts of uncontrollable, side-splitting laughter? No? I guess that means it's no longer considered a comedy classic. 
Does this clip make you break out in bouts of uncontrollable, side-splitting laughter? No? I guess that means it's no longer considered a comedy classic.
Toxic waste spilled on Jason in Friday the 13 part 8 is that now mean its science fiction?
Remember toxic waste spilled on toxic avenger and that made it sci to to you
Now its a sci-fi film..congratulations jason
I showed you the quote. You were comparing the '86 film to the Broadway show and called the film "the musical." If you say you knew the Broadway show was also a musical, I take your word for it. I'll just say your writing could be a lot clearer and less ambiguous.
I also laughed at those things plus the Marx Brothers. I don't make my business to assume what people find funny or not.
Moving on. The physical comedy in those clips you showed alone would make the 1960 film a comedy in my opinion. And the sword fighting with the dentist? That's clearly comedy.
Darker than what? The Broadway show had the directors cut ending that was pulled. So are you saying the '86 film is darker than the '60 film?
You're forgetting the fact that he mutated from the spill. Otherwise, showing a spider bite someone also wouldn't be sci-fi.
"Made it sci-fi to you"
Aren't you sassy? As if I'm the one who claimed it was sci-fi to begin with. You're really mad at IMDb, not me.
I was arguing it was a horror, remember? The sci-fi debate was introduced by you.
I said the 60 film was considered darker already.. Said it didn't have a happy ending
You brought imdb into this.. I said I've never heard anyone consider toxic avenger a horror flick, said its always been.know as a bmovie super hero flick.. Even decided to ask a few people during the night while I was out do they consider toxic avenger a scary movie? Asked them what category they would put it under.. Everyone said he'll no to it being horror.. All said superhero , some called it a dark comedy super hero movie, violent superhero, nobody looked at it as horror.. Even explained you and certain sites considered it a horror and most replies was thats stupid with other insults..lot of headshaking.. Than I even mention sci fi and they really looked at me like I was dumb.. Just saying what the consensus thought.. I can say thanks to you I introduced some people to the original ending of the Shop of horrors 86 film that they didn't know about..where Audrey won.. Mind blown to most folks
Last edited:
Yeah, no shit I brought IMDb into it. You made it seem like it was ridiculous that it I considered it a horror. So I brought in a film site that categorizes films by genres. That doesn't mean you had to ignore the original discussion and start another one about the film being a sci-fi. That's on you, playa.
And your friends are only a consensus for you. I don't know them ninjas. Their opinion means nothing to me. If my friends considered it a horror, would you give a shit. I hope not.
Oh, "superhero" isn't a legit genre. Most superhero films are in the action genre. TTA would best be described as a dark comedy with horror elements. Personally, I find TTA to be closer to films like Leprechaun than to low-budget, B superhero films like The Guyver or The Meteor Man.
In your imdb list it first described it as action.. It was a very cheap film to make and it was in the 80s where it was limited special effects.. Go look at the incredible hulk show from like the 70s, the 6 million dollar man.. They had superpower but they didn't have modern day technology.. Incredible hulk was a kid friendly show so they didn't show him ripping people arms off, or breaking people into pieces.. Well toxic avenger did.. He had next level strength and he was violent.. In modern days Rorschach in watch men would be similar in violence.. Watchmen was a superhero flick due to Dr Manhattan and other characters.. Superhero is a genre, but when you try to put it in the movie world they try to break it down by movie standards and sections.. Nobody ever knew it would be this many superhero films especially at once so they never had a set place for them like "horror", " comedy" .. But it is a genre by itself, like karate flicks back in the days
So...the last 15 minutes of Bone Lake were fun
In the comics, the Hulk never ripped people apart. It could be because it was aimed at children but so was the Punisher and they still managed to portray the Punisher as brutal. Hulk was usually portrayed as wanting to be left alone.
And superhero films aren't new. You can go back to the 40s and see Batman, Superman, and Cap serials. Those were likely more numerous than modern superhero flicks because they came out on a weekly basis (serial). They were like TV shows in the days before TV. So, this "new problem" of so many superhero films isn't new.
Superhero is an artificial genre. Ask yourself why RoboCop isn't considered a superhero film but Iron Man is or why Blade and Hellboy are superhero films but Underworld isn't?
The genre is artificial and only based on if a character was originally known in comics before going to the cinema.
As to Watchmen, they were all superheroes not just Manhattan. He was just the only one with powers. But Ozymandias was super intelligent. All of the Watchmen characters were based on earlier Charleston Comics characters.
@playahaitian I want know your opinion on this particular idea. This is the first time expressed it on here so I know it's an idea we haven't discussed yet.
Shit, Logan is considered a "superhero" film and that movie is closer to Léon: The Professional than it is to any superhero film I can think of IMO.
You may already know this but I'm putting it here for the thread. Rorschach was based on the Charlton Comics (not "Charleston" as I mistakenly wrote) character The Question created by Steve Ditko who co-created Spider-Man and Doctor Strange.
Ditko was an Objectivist, an acolyte of Ayn Rand, who followed a type of libertarian philosophy. He used The Question to espouse that philosophy in the comic and later writers continued to make the character philosophical.
That's why Alan Moore wrote Rorschach as a moral absolutist because of how Ditko wrote The Question.
Last edited:
Hmmm....Damn that is an interesting point on its face.
I just always considered like porn I can't define it but I know it when I see it.
if I labeled Robocop a superhero then Clint Eastwood dirty harry would be. But then what is the Punisher? Or Toxic Avenger? Or the New Mutants movie which is similar to Blade, Werewolf by Night, brightburn, chronicles (maybe) with horror meets superhero.
I don't think the proper term is "artificial".
and your definition is limited because hollywood can create a superhero without it being in printed form first.
We have had heros in TV and cartoons first then transition to print then the big screen like Harly.
Peacemaker and Penguin are not "just" superhero" shows. Thats legit drama and comedy Also traditionally superhero has a slightly negative bent.
Fantastic Four and Superman were definitely science fiction but undoubtedly superhero luke your definition states.
This is interesting in terms of trying to catalog. But before I choose to engage.
Why does this matter?
Why is it important to specifically categorize a movie or character as a "superhero"?
Its impossible. Or fruitless. Because science fiction and superhero go hand in hand.
But they can also be very distinct.
The last few years art has really been having a difficult time labeling itself as ONE thing.
Sidebar: The award shows are a good example. The bear isnt a comedy but its won comedy awards because it has outstanding comedic elements but it aint no traditional comedy. I know a comedy a drama a horror a thriller etc when I see it. It just is. Also if the creator themselves and industry say thats what it is?
Then I have no problem just calling it that.
True, but unless it's a very conventional superhero story or played for comedy, it likely wouldn't be considered a superhero film.
For instance, if Blade wasn't a character in Marvel comics, the films wouldn't be considered superhero films any more than the Underworld films are. They would be action/horror with no mention of superheroes.
Honestly, I don't believe there's been a superhero, even a very conventional one, specifically created by Hollywood that wasn't played for comedy. I certainly can't recall a superhero film where the character didn't originate in comics that was played straight.
Actually, Unbreakable may the only original Hollywood superhero film that was played straight. But that wasn't conventional since it was a metafictional analysis of the superhero genre. The villain's whole purpose was to find, or even create in a way, a superhero.
To bring it back to my original point, calling something a superhero film doesn't carry much weight since pretty much any genre can include superheroes.
I only raise this topic because there was seemingly an implication that something couldn't be classified as horror if were a superhero film.
