I Just Want It To Be Over

Week 3 of Into to Film started today. Yippee! Um, I just want to make sure everyone here's the sarcasm in that as they read it. Maybe a Daria-like voice? We're good? Okay.

This week's theme (yes, we have a theme each week) is essentially the Horror genre. Steve decided to add a twist,  “because every good horror movie has a twist," and threw in comedy/horror movies. More explicitly, Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland. Both brilliant comedies, but in my opinion, not so much horror films.

One of the discussion questions this week was this:

In some instances, genres overlap each other, as in Zombieland or Shaun of the Dead. In your opinion, do you think these movies fall into an existing genre, such as horror or comedy? If so, which one do they fall into? Why did you select this genre? If not, how would you define the genre? What would you call it?

I thought about changing the font to something more professional, but if it's good enough for Steve, why not copy and paste? Anyway, this was my response:

"Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead fall into the comedy genre more than horror. The movies are more funny than scary, if they are even scary at all. The zombies are more sluggish and silly than terrifying, the actors deliver hilarious line after hilarious line, and the stories have a happy ending. Horror movies never have a happy ending. It defeats the purpose of a horror movie. I guess it is possible to say they fall in both genres, but I personally find nothing about these films to qualify them as horror.

They are both listed on imdb.com as comedy/horror, and thinking about it, Zombieland is a bit more suspenseful than Shaun of the Dead. There were genuine moments that startle you, but nothing that I would consider horror."

The question is asking for my opinion and I give that. There is nothing scary about those movies. They're meant to parody the zombie craze if anything, and to me, have a Scary Movie vibe to them. But that doesn't really matter. IT IS MY OPINION. Patrick must have missed that part of the question. Remember Patrick? He's the one who insisted John Travolta was in Forrest Gump. The one who takes serious offense to every post I make. The one who can't hang up the campaign hat long enough to not treat everyone like he's their TI yelling at them.

Here's his reply to me. Not his reply to the question, but directly to me:

Tiffany
You are mistaken about "Horror movies never have a happy ending". On the contrery most horror films do have happy endings. After all- did Jaws not got blown up at the end of the movie? Does Freddie Krueger not get "kills" at the end of most of his films, Does Jaime Lee Curts not live to see a sequel? Do they not find out who the killer is in the Scream films?? Does Linda Blair not become a normal little girl again at the end of The Exercist?  I think the happy ending is what viewers wait for in horror movie, it gives you the sense of vindication, and that good triemphs over evil. I do realize though...that in the past decade or so, a lot of horror films have opted for a not so happy ending (paticularly zombie films, which makes both Zombie Land and Shaun of the Dead stand out even more). Horror films (IMO) try to push the envalope now days with shock, and little substance. Speaking of zombies...they are supposed to be sluggish and silly, they are, after all, dead. Just saying...

He still has not posted his own reply to Steve...as is required. I chose to ignore the spelling and grammar mistakes and simply respond to his "happy ending" theory:

"I'm not sure how your entire family and social circle being slaughtered as you helplessly watch is a happy ending. Every horror movie worth it's salt leaves the audience with a sense that it isn't really over at the end. There is nothing happy about it. 

Freddy always comes back to kill again. Linda Blair's character was possessed by a demon and a priest was killed, can we say therapy for life? Jaime Lee Curtis lives (until she dies) in fear of her brother coming back to kill her. Neve Campbell's Scream character Sidney lives a life in which she is constantly scared and untrusting of anyone who gets to close to her. Still think that's happy? 

I cannot name any horror movie where I get a "sense of vindication, and that good triumphs over evil." In fact, I get the sense that (even if there is no sequel made) these people will be forever damaged from the incident that has happened and in killing the killer, be it self-defense or not, they now have a tiny bit of that evil inside them.

In Zombieland, the nerd gets the girl and a set of cahones. In Shaun of the Dead, Shaun wins back the girl and gets to still have his BFF Ed (though, in Zombie form). And the zombies of these movies are sluggish and silly to make you less afraid of them. The zombies in 28 Days Later, Dawn of the Dead, Resident Evil, etc. are vicious and snarling. They don't dance to Thriller and die comically. "

I mean, am I right? Did you walk away from The Exorcist with a good feeling? No. You walked away from The Exorcist looking for the Bible. I left the Halloween movies checking my backseat and under the bed. Because of Scream, I STILL don't answer phone calls from numbers that I don't know or are blocked. No sense of good beating evil, just a few nightmares and extra precautions. 

I also know that Patrick needs to learn what spellcheck is. Correct me here peeps if I am wrong, but did Zombieland or Shaun of the Dead scare you? I will refrain from LOLing in your face if they did, I promise. I looked at his reply to the other Week 3 DQ and it is obvious this guy has a hard-on for the Horror genre. He wrote a giant run-on sentence describing the effectiveness of Leather Face as a bad guy. The DQ was asking us about teen slasher flicks and the cliches that are rampant in them. I guess Leather Face as a inbred, mentally impaired, slow-moving, psycho is not cliched at all. Not Michael Myer's esque in any way, shape, or form. He stated that "Leather Face is scary because he was real and really chopped people up with his chainsaw." 

Should I school him on the real events behind the Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Should I tell him that it is based on Ed Gein and didn't even really happen in Texas? Should I burst his bubble that there were no actual chainsaws? What's the point? The man is a delusional idiot. 

Here's a link to the truth behind the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, you know, in case you thought it was real too.

I have done my four posts for the day. I think I'll just let this one ride, because there is just no reasoning with some people. 

Until tomorrow.

UPDATE: 2157 hrs MST

Patrick just couldn't let it ride. All I did was copy and paste. Everything that is wrong about this is that wrong.

You are missing the pint! Have uyo even seen the movies or just guessing from idbm? by the time the credits roll, in most horror films, the evil has been conquered. Wether the characters have "issues"after the credits role is a different story. We can let the phycologists handle that stuff... Freddy comes back again....to do sqeuels, nothing more, nothing less. The loss experinced by the characters in horror film onlys adds to the feeling of vindecation when the "heroes"  finally over come the    evil they face.  You get to see how people find a way to survive and over come impossible odds.   The zombies in Shaun of the Dead and Zombie land are just that...zombies(i.e. the walking dead). Dawn of the dead (the remake, I assume you are referring to)  and Resident evil, are unlike most zombies on film, and do not represent the zombie genre as a whole. 28 Days later---not zombies.(even though it is an awesume film)

 The endings of horror films may not be roses and parades and puppy dogs or whateve you think makes it flowery, but in the end the surviving character (usualy) overcome some sort of evil entitty, returning their lives to some sort of norm.  You are left with clues and the impression that the story is not over to get you back into the theatre next summer. People managing to survive through harrowing experiences, I believe, leads to a happy ending. Now, if there are no survivors...different story. 

Not picking a fight with you, but I just don't agree with you becaus your wrong.

How do you even respond to that? If I destroy him, I look like I am a bully or overreacting. I know this type of guy. He was a pussy in whatever his Air Force career field was before he was a T.I. Once, he got his hat, he probably tortured and bullied his trainees simply because they were taller or better looking than him, or because they got a better AFSC than him. Once his T.I. tour of duty was up (or his hat got taken) he was forced to go back into a career field where everyone hated him and to boot, he got sent to South fuckin' Dakota. No offense to the good people of the Mount Rushmore State, but no one wants to be stationed there.

So, as ashamed as I am to admit this, I sort of played the victim. Just read and you'll see.

I don't think I'm missing anything. Your interpretation of the genre and mine are different. We don't have to agree to have a civil debate about it. There's no need to attack my opinion on it. I don't see the happy ending, nor do I think the genre looks to provide one. I also don't know what good a phycologist is going to do, as I don't think that's a real word. Maybe psychologist? Please refrain from trying to sound superior in your posts. It's degrading...to you because you don't employ spellcheck. 

You're the one who replied to my post, not vice versa. I never took this as you picking a fight until you referenced that you weren't. Now the tone of every reply takes on an entirely different meaning. You don't need to put down others to get your point across. 

We were asked for our opinions. I gave mine. You then attacked that without provocation. I hardly think that being condescending to a fellow classmate is appropriate. It lacks integrity, excellence and selflessness. I would appreciate if you cannot find it in yourself to be civil on the forums, that you refrain from commenting on my post. I came here to learn, not be ridiculed.

He has yet to respond, but EVERYONE ELSE HAS. One retired Marine Colonel informed Pat (can I call you Pat?) that his comments read like a "snarky fly boy." A lovely grandmother named Ann posted that she agreed with my assessments of the movie and that she found it quite sad that "in the year 2012, there are still men that feel the need to viciously attack women" and that Pat's comments were "inappropriate and childish." There were so many more, but this is the one that matters the most. Steve replied to my last post by saying this:

Tiffany and all,

I love a good debate, but I must say that the replies to Tiffany’s posts by Patrick are not conducive to a healthy and happy learning environment. I appreciate you Fictitious Bird’s coming to another’s defense. Let’s have a good clean conversation from here on out, shall we? Patrick, you have met your participation requirement for the day and then some. Why not come back tomorrow with a fresh set of ideas?

I think I just witnessed the online equivalent to getting kicked out of class. Except that this time, the right person got kicked out! Did any of my fellow AF vets catch the core values line in my reply? I couldn't resist. 

Gotta sign off. Taking Little Bug to school tomorrow morning, then some volunteering at the Sun City GOP HQ, then picking up Little Bug, followed by being awesome. Night!