| written by Magnulus on Oct 25, 2007 06:15 |
 | |  | | ![]() No matter what labels you stick to a putrid turd, it's still a putrid turd. | |  | |  |
|
| written by Fth on Oct 25, 2007 07:09 |
 | |  | | ![]() I disagree (though I haven't seen the movie) Gothic horror is just something for a certain kind of person. I thought these things to be sort of ridiculous, but reading "Lady Oracle" by Margaret Atwood kinda changed that. There is not only a demand but a need for movies like this. It's useful and there's people who would have a very hard time without stuff like it. It's like *Bleeped as not to offend anybody* basically, but without all the violence  | |  | |  |
|
| written by Magnulus on Oct 25, 2007 07:32 |
| | | | ![]() How about a sombre rendition of The Raven in contemporary garb? Frankenstein? Dracula is a fantastic piece of gothic horror, so why did they feel the need to create this? Anyway, it's not gothic horror, it's a cheesy actioneer with crap actors (apart from Nighy, duh!) and crappier action!
As far as what I've been able to tell, gothic horror is closely related to the terrors of the human psyche and that sort of thing. All philosophisizing and dark. If you tell me Underworld is that and not just an action film with vampires and werewolves in it, I'm not going to believe you until you can argue for it.
The 1994 adaptation of Frankenstein was gothic horror, so was the Dracula film from 1992. Whether or not they were GOOD is a different discussion. I'm merely saying that they were gothic horror, while Underworld is more suited to hang out with the Resident Evil films. (And Van Helsing) | | | | |
|
| written by Zjc92 on Oct 25, 2007 08:47 |
 | |  | | ![]() I'm the wrong person to talk to. I like Van Helsing, too. ^_^ | |  | |  |
|
| written by Magnulus on Oct 25, 2007 08:50 |
| | | | ![]() The discussion has moved from personal taste to the very tangible concept of "what can be called gothic horor?" so whether you like Van Helsing or not isn't that important. | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]()  | Magnulus said: | | Dracula is a fantastic piece of gothic horror, so why did they feel the need to create this? |
I watched the original Dracula (it was a Drama Club movie night, we're doing a play on Dracula). Now it may have been a breakthrough back then, but it seems distinctly bland and unoriginal today (and I'm not talking about the graphics).
Of course, that's just what it is compared to today, so don't hang me. | | | | |
|
| written by Magnulus on Oct 25, 2007 11:09 |
| | | | ![]() I was talking about the book. | | | | |
|
| written by Duskesko on Oct 25, 2007 11:10 |
 | |  | | ![]() vampires aren't vampires if they aren't like the vampires that were in the old and mighty vampire movie blah blah blah | |  | |  |
|
| written by Fth on Oct 25, 2007 16:51 |
| | | | ![]() Gothic Horror to me is usually something formularic but still gripping. if there were a movie equivalent, it definitely wouldn't be deep and psychological, but rather violent and mass-ready. Gothic fiction was never written for inellectuals, it was written to sell, and so it did. And so do movies like this... this Underworld thing (correct me if I'm wrong, but even I've heard the name... and I'm not very movie-knowledgeable). You should've read the critiques the Dracula book got... it was just vulgar at the time, full of sex and gore (though there was no actual sex, there were many distinctly sexual motives, and that just wasn't going with the spirit of the times. Which was why it sold, of course) | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]() | Magnulus said: | | I was talking about the book. |
Oh. | | | | |
|
| written by Magnulus on Oct 25, 2007 19:34 |
| | | | ![]() FTH, that's still nowhere near what Underworld is. Also, you're contradicting yourself... Formulas don't go against the spirit of the times, they stay within them and sell by the buckets because they're based on tried and tested... well, formulas. So either gothic horrors weren't formulaic or Dracula wasn't a gothic horror. | | | | |
|
| written by Fth on Oct 25, 2007 19:42 |
| | | | ![]() Dracula... Creature that lives in the night, full moons, castles, old derelict buildings, great natural landscapes, modern citiscape that seems alien, graveyard... you think it invented those? Can't get much more formularic than that. These things are pretty much what makes (older) gothic horror. Modern gothic horror uses different topoi, though some stay the same of course.
What went against the spirit of the times was how women were depicted as a hunk of meat instead of the young delicate weak maiden they were supposed to be. (The female vampires are who I'm talking about) | | | | |
|
| written by Magnulus on Oct 25, 2007 21:00 |
| | | | ![]() Being formulaic is more than just incorporating a formula. If you take a formula and twist it, that makes something new, in my opinion. | | | | |
|
| written by Zjc92 on Oct 26, 2007 02:34 |
| | | | ![]() Erm, this girl admitted she "Likes" me. :S I don't have a clue what to do. | | | | |
|
| 
