Template talk:Horror Icons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Template
This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the assessment scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. October 2006 - November 2006


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/r/Template_talk%7EHorror_Icons_e137.html"