Headed for a July 13th, 2003 relish. Can't wait. It's being directed by Ronny Yu. Robert Englud will return as Freddy, with Ken Krinzger (Kain Hodder's stun double in "FT13th part 8) as Jason. Corey Fledman will also return as Tommy Jervis.

Why I would love to like this idea, there are a few things that have me annoyed. One: This plan to turn Jason into a "Tourtored soul, Phantom Of the Opera type" has me annoyed. Also plans to include kung-fu Matrix type fighting. (Ugh! Eoungh with the bullet-time!) Then there's firing Kain Hodder. He was a great Jason. But they did so because they wanted someone smaller, because Robert Englud is really short compared to Kain Hodder. They didn't want the match seeming unfair. Hmm... Almost makes sense.

Here's hopeing it doesn't sux.

If it didn't suc it wouldn't be any fun would it?

Years ago, my dad and I kidded around about making a spoof of slasher/horror flicks (in the vein of Airplane), featuring Freddy and Jason as the main bad guys. Little did we ever realize where that idea would end up...

The two horror movie icons sorta kinda met in an earlier Friday the 13th flick. At the end of one of them, Jason's mask falls to the ground. A gloved hand with knives on it (Freddy Krueger) reaches out of the ground. It grabs Jason's face mask and pulls it into the dirt. Wonder if this is meant to foreshadow the results of the upcoming fight?

This isn't the first time two movie icons from similar genres were pitted together. There have been numerous comic book miniseries pitting Aliens vs. Predator, and Robocop vs. Terminator. One of my teachers from art school, Walter Simonson, illustrated the latter, and it was written by Frank Miller.

Miller not only wrote Robocops 2 and 3, but he also wrote and pencilled the seminal miniseries The Dark Knight Returns, which was the inspiration for the first two Tim Burton Batman films (which was inked by Klaus Janson, another favorite teacher of mine), and the most recent Batman cartoons.

He also revitalized the Daredevil comic book around the same time, creating Ben Urich and Electra (played by Jennifer Garner in the upcoming movie). The story of the Daredevil movie takes some of its cues from those stories he wrote.

Turns out that Corey Feldman will not be returning for this film. He droped out due to "agruments on how the character should be proteryed." Sounds like Feldman's ego hasn't srunken in ten years. I hope he's having fun on the "Surreal Life."

Source: www.coreyfeldman.com

If you aviod sex with teenagers in a camp ground you are safe from Jason. To aviod Freddy don't go to sleep.

So, no sleeping around at all, in any context, in a slasher film, right?

If you can't have sex where's the incentive to stay up?

A Star Trek movie marathon?

It would appear that Touchstone has push the relish date back to sometime in the fall. Dang it!

I must say that this has got to be the most idiotic idea! Does the winner face-off against Chucky ... and then Michael Meyers? Or perhaps Pinhead. Too bad Vincent Price isn't alive - he could be the referee. I guess we'll have to settle for Joe-Bob Briggs.

I've seen pictures of Ken Krinzger and he is not that much smaller than Kane Hooder. The picture I saw was him standing back to back with Robert Englund. THey both where in full makeup and I'll admit they both look •••• cool. But I'm Still surprised that they didn't have Kane Hodder.

I mean Kane was pushing for this movie that hardest and the most to be made and in the end he's not behind the mask. That one of the major things that bugs me about this moive.

I'm really worried aobut this movie becasue they are making Jason the "Sympathetic type" That's not the Jason that was in any of the other Movies.

I'm such a geek but I wrote some a script. Nothing came by it, but i do reemeber reading some rejected scrpts and being disappointed to how they treated the characters. Mostly what they did to Jason--They softened him up and made him the "hero" in some aspects. I made sure in my script that that didn't happpen. THey both were menacing monsters. I hope they they didn't soften Jason up.

Well, I got my hands on the script (I have sources )and, well, it sounds preety good. I have to say one thing, the script is really more of a "Nightmare" film, then a "Friday" film. Too bad, I always been more of a Jason fan. Oh, and I figured out what they ment with "tragic" Jason.

(SPOILERS!)

In one scene, Freddy transforms into Mrs. Voorhees and visits Jason. In this scene we get to see a slightly more emotinal Jason. But don't worry, he's still the Classic Hockey Mask we've come to love.

(END SPOILERS!)

One thing I have to say about the script is that when the final fight scene between Freddy and Jason comes to film... It will be a wonderful sight!

Horror fans... This is the one you've been screaming for! (To qoute the Ft13th Part 4 movie poster.)

guy, which script did you see? I've seen 2 diferent unproduced scripts (and reviews of about 6 others) that newline rejected and have ben floating around the net. (Peter Briggs, Brandon Braga & Ron B Moore)

I've seen about 5 differnt scripts.
Here's a webpage forum that talks about the rejected scrpits.

http://fridaythe13thforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18056


The movie is scheduled to come out on August 15. And it stars Kelly Rowland from Destiny's Child. I'm kinda hoping for her to die kinda horribly.

(I really Don't Like Destiny's Child)

The offical website is up now. (www.freddyvsjason.com)so you all can go and check that out. It has some pictures on it. Most of which have already appeared In Fangoria and else where on line. But the one new pic we do get is really cool. It appears to be a pic of Jason and Freddy about to go at it, they're in the boiler room, and it looks as if it's filling with water. Hmmm... Interesting.

More has been added to the site including a bunch of new images, some really great looking desk-top downloadables, as well as the trailer. I haven't seen it yet because my video card sucks, but give me some time. I'll be back with the imput on it later.

The trailer, in most theatres, is attached to Matrix 2.

I didn't get to see it. Just more dumb trailers for T3 and 2 Fast 2 Furious.

Here's where you can watch the trailer for Freddy Vs. Jason. Surprisingly - because I'm not a horror film fan - I've watched it. It might be worthwhile to check out. If they can pull it off right. "Place your bets." (I'm thinking a tie.)

http://www.freddyvsjason.com/

You know, except for that last line, I think that it's a good trailer (that, and the fact that I have no idea what the heck that little kid says at the beginning)

She says "Warn your Friends, Warn Everyone"

I love that poster that reads "They've Been Dying To Kill Each Other." Isn't that techniclaly a nit? With the exception of that scene at the very end of Jason Goes To Hell, there has never ben any hint that these two even knew the other existed.

Yeah, well, um, I'm a bit ignorant about these two characters, but uh, aren't they both dead? How can they be dying if they're dead?

Well...I happen to have some friends with connections, and I got to see this at a sneak preview last night! Of course, they told us all not to give away the ending to anyone. What I will say is that this movie really kicked serious ass and I don't think any fan could be disappointed. There was even a bit of a plot to it beyond the obvious.
The best line was where this stoner says "Dude, that goalie was pissed about something."

Before the movie started there were some people from a radio station, 97.1 The Eagle, getting people into these "contests" to get free t-shirts and stuff. (like, which girl in the audience has the loudest scream) And then one of the radio guys was asking some trivia questions. Unfortunately he didn't know half the answers to his own questions. Jason's mom's name is Pamela Voorhees, but some guy said "Amanda" (that's Freddy's mom) and got a shirt for it. And Corey Feldman was in the fourth Friday the 13th movie, not the third!

The Eagle, the last I'd heard it, has really been going downhill. The rock radio station that really matters in Dallas, AFAIK, is 93.3, the Bone.

(God, I miss going to all those sneak previews in Dallas. T.K., if you can find a copy of The Dallas Observer, it will usually list other sneak previews films in it and where to get tickets, where the preview is being done, etc. Just in case you're interested. The new issue should be out today.)

Got to see the movie today, it was excellent, and the script I got my hands on was indeed the filming script. The movie worked very nicely as both a horror film and a action film. The gore was excellent, the scares where many, and the final fight was indeed amazing.

The film also managed to be funny without slipping to the self-refreail tadics of Scream. Freddy had some great one liners, and Jason seemed to be joked around with a bit.

NITS AND REFENCES (SPOILERS):

Would the oxygen tanks really have enough force to fly over to Jason and then carry him even farther?

During the cornfeild massacre, the blood seem to really fly. I don't think blood sprays out quite like that.

Woundn't the beer feed the fire, and not put it out?

I was confused by the whole Laurie's Mom murder sub-plot. If Freddy was the one that killed her, why did Will see her father stabbing her?

I don't recall seeing Jason ever wear a seath for his machete before, and yet, at the cornfeild, you hear him unseath the machete.

Why didn't Kelly Rowland's character loses her noise in the real world? Isn't the threoy that, whatever happens to you in the dream happens to you in the real world?

Jason seem to dig himself out of Hell rather easily...

I thought Nancy's house was condeemed. That's how it appeared in the thrid Nightmare film.

I didn't catch the movie playing on the TV at the hospital. But I think it might have been Evil Dead 2.

Some of the character's names had refreence writen all over it. "Mike," "Laurie," "Chuck."

What was with the constraction site at Crystel lake? Wasn't the camp condeemed too?

Nice to see that the "Freddy, latex, morphing his head through a wall" gag hasn't run tried yet.

Unfortunately, I did in fact waste good money on this movie. It made for a good laugh at least. I didn't hear much of Freddy's narration in the beginning of the film because of these annoying, loud-mouthed morons in front of and beside me. I was with friends, and we all agreed afterward that we wished Jason had killed them, too (:

I have to disagree with you, Thatmonsterman, regarding the fright factor of this film. I wasn't startled once throughout the entire movie. I suppose it's because most of the "scares" were so cliched, anyway. And quite frankly...I DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE HUMAN CHARACTERS! I didn't go to the movie to see them get slaughtered. I went to see Freddy fight Jason, hence the title (hello?) FREDDY VS. JASON. To reiterate, it reads FREDDY VERSUS JASON, not Freddy vs. Jason vs. late 20's unknown thespians amusingly playing teenagers.

The acting was, of course, horrible. That woman running with the torches at the end was absurd and laughable, no matter if they put it in slow-motion (as a matter of fact, it added to it). Pretty much the only character I liked was the obvious Jason Mewes (Jay of "Jay & Silent Bob") ripoff.

Now on to the nitpicks. First, I thought Freddy bled green blood, but by the end, he was gushing out red blood. And secondly, does this movie follow the continuity/canon of the previous A Nightmare on Elm Street flicks (I take it by the montage of flashbacks to prior movies during the beginning)? If so, then hoo-boy, did they ever screw up. Wes Craven's New Nightmare acknowledged that all the preceding A Nightmare on Elm Street movies were IN FACT movies. This means that the Nancy character's house and really the entire Elm Street don't actually exist. Technically, neither does Freddy, as New Nightmare established that he's really a demon incarnate personified as the horror figure of Freddy Krueger.

"New Nightmare" is suspose to take place in the "real world" thus, it's not in the main continuy and works more as a what-if film. So, FvJ takes places after "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare." This makes sense to me, since Freddy was indeed, bandished from the real world in that film. It only seems to make sense to me that the Springwood people would take it a step farther and make sure that he had no way of coming back.

I thought the film manged to be scary in some spots. Mostly the dream sequnces where good and surreal.

Yeah, the acting sucked, but bad acting is a staple of these films, and I didn't think it was so bad that it took away from the enjoyment level of the movie. Cause, after all, I went to this film to see gore and the aforemanged fight. The fact that is was also funny and scary are a nice bonus.

Freddy hasn't bleed green blood since the first movie. It seemed to me that he did the green blood thing to seemply scare the girl in the dream.

Just as a nice add-on, these movie is currently number one at the box office and has all ready redeemed it's budget. Ronny Yu and Robert Englund said that if this movie did well at the box office, it seemed likely that more "Vs" films would follow, as would the long-awaited Nightmare prequal. I, personly, am very excited by this. I wonder if they will just make a FvJ rematch or have the characters go on to fight other horror icons. Either would work for me.

TMG: Aliens Vs. Predator has already been green-lighted, and according to what I heard they'll likley follow the novels that came after the original comic book.

Woundn't the beer feed the fire, and not put it out?

Beer is not flammable. While pure alcohol is t flammable most types of drinks don’t have enough of it to burn. Only Biccardi 151 and a few others are strong enough.

I was confused by the whole Laurie's Mom murder sub-plot. If Freddy was the one that killed her, why did Will see her father stabbing her?

He saw her dad coming up to her with a knife while she was screaming in a dream. What probably happened is her father heard her screaming like she was being attacked and figured someone was in the house attacking her. He grabbed a knife and ran into the bedroom. Once he pulled the covers off of her all he saw was marks appearing on her as Freddy killer her in her dream.

Why didn't Kelly Rowland's character loses her noise in the real world? Isn't the threoy that, whatever happens to you in the dream happens to you in the real world?

Because Freddy wasn’t strong enough yet, he needed to feed off of more fear. Remember the shadow attack for early in the film. He couldn’t even hurt the guy in that dream. By Kelly Roland’s dream he could hurt her in it but it wouldn’t happen to her in the real world.

If anyone's interested (and why wouldn't you be?) there's a new interveiw on UGO.com with Robert Englund. He even mentions a new script for the prequel, Elm Street: The First Kills. I haven't been following the Elm Street news or rumors so this was the first time I'd heard of it. I dunno what's in the script but it'd be nice if they could for the most part logically (at least as much as is possible, given the genre) explain just how Freddy became supernatural and why he only kills Elm Street kids (aside from them having sex) and not anyone from anywhere else.

Okay, I used to be a fan of the Elmstreet series back when I was a teenager. I stopped being a fan after the 4th, when they really (really!) started going down hill. I really enjoyed the New Nightmare, though. (Although arguably that is only because I have always had a huge crush on Heather Langencamp. 20 years later and she's still great looking!)

Since then I have stopped watching rated R movies, and how absolutely no desire to see this movie. However... I just HAVE to read the script for this! Please, That Monster Guy, can you email me a copy of the script? Or at least summarize the movie with major spoilers (in an email)? gelzyme@yahoo.com

Please let me know! Thanks!

Apparently a draft of First Kills has been sitting on Robert Shay's desk for some years now. It's an interesting idea but raises several red flags at the get go.

First it means doing an Elm Street film without the trademark supernatural dreams, at least for most of the film.

Second we've seen lots of flashbacks to freddy's early life and death in the previous films. If they want to do it right they better not contradict much of it or risk royally pissing off the fans.

Interestingly John Saxon has talked about returning as Lt. Thompson (Nancy's father from part 1 & 3.) If this film happens we're going to want to see that character but can Saxon convincingly play a man 30 years younger that he is now.

Back in the late 80s they tried to do something similer in the pilot for the syndicated horror series Freddy's Nightmares (if you don't know the series basically it turned Freddy into a kind of Crypt Keeper host, some episodes dealt with Fredddy in the main plot most didn't.) The first ep (directed by horror icon Tobe Hooper) had the residents of Springwood killing Freddy after he was released. The problem was the the show didn't follow the continuity of the films. It was set in the present day (late 80s) rather than the late 60s/early 70s where it should have been. Lt. Thompson was not in it, instead some other cop guy with, twin daughters, took his place. They also got his death wrong. Instead of burning his whole place down by an angry mob outside the cop covers Freddy in gas and lights him on fire.

I saw this moive last night, adn enoyed the hell out it! Even the Jay rip-off with the classic line "Dude, that goalie was pi$$ed about soemthing." My only two complaints are, Freddy didn't get any really memorable one-liners this time around, and the fight scenes were just too damned short. Although I suppose it could just as easily gone the other way. "Always leave them wanting more" as the old saying goes.

Regarding the Elm Sreet prequel, Englund did an interview in The Onion, and he kind of skirted around it, but it sounds to me like it's probably NOT going to happen.

In the "Thank God For That" file, he also said he has no intention of tusling with Michael Meyers or Chucky in any more Vs. films (but he didn't quite rule out a Freddy vs. Jason 2).

A sequal for FvJ is indeed swimming around and, should be green-lighted by next year (at the lastest) The first rumor for who will be the thrid fighter is Ash from "The Evil Dead" series.

I think this isn't likely to happen, because both Bruce Campbell and Sam Rami have said they don't plan on doing another Evil Dead film, but, on the rare chance that it does happen, well, I think it would be cool. I mean, Ash battle Jason, then Ash is possesed by Freddy, then an Freddy-possesed-Ash fights Jason. Yeah, that would be cool. But, what would they call it? "Freddy Vs. Jason Vs. Ash?" "A Nightmare About The Evil Dead On Friday The 13th?" "Freddy Vs. Jason Again, Featureing Bruce Campbell?"

I thought the Nightmare prequal was entitled "Elm Street: The First Murders"

The movie on the TV was "Bride of Dracula," I believe.

And I don't think it was the beer that sprayed on Jason and put the fire out--I think it was from the water. There was a big "Water" sign in the clearing--that and the glo-sticks being the filmmakers' way of saying "this is a rave" without showing ecstasy use.

The flying oxygen tanks were also used in "The Last Castle." That doesn't mean they'd work, mind you...

They might though. In the book Warning Signs by Stephen White the character of Ramp used them (flying oxygen tanks) to try and assassinate the Colorado State Supreme Court judges. And White does his research.

The third fighter for Freddy Vs Jason 2, might be Chucky, as the same director (Donny Yu ?)did "Bride of Chucky" as well as "Freddy Vs Jason". Bruce Campbell has said that he's not turning up as Ash, as I think He's doing "Bubba-Ho-Tep 2"
(Elvis Presley Vs Dracula ?)

I rented it on video tonight--and it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.

I just rented it last night with 4 other DVD's (Underworld; the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake; Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life; League of Extraordingary Gentlemen) and it was just as I'd expected so the bad acting and corny one-liners weren't any big surprise, but overall I thought it was an ok time killer.

I watched this movie last Saturday. I thought it was rather mediocre. I thought Jason X was more imaginative.

The opening seemed very pedestrian in how Jason and Freddy were brought back to life. I guess I really shouldn't expect plausibility. Viewers sure didn't have to wait long to see a pair of breasts. About a couple of minutes into the film, a woman drops her clothes to go skinny-dipping. I have some complaints about casting. Couldn't they find an actress with more realistic looking breast implants. Those phony looking breast implants were distracting. I prefer seeing more natural looking breast implants.

Beyond the supernatural shennanigans of Freddy and Jason, there were many other unbelievable things. It was too easy for the two men to escape from that institution. Once back at the high school (even though they all looked to be in their mid-twenties), they manage to outrun and lose the police even though the cops get within twenty feet of them.

About the "evil" father, I thought it was absolutely too ridiculous and far out that he was running some sort of "Coma" style sci-fi secret experimental project. Inside that hospital, there was one scene I thought was delightfully inventive. The "lizard/catipillar" Freddie thingie brought about from smoking a joint was fun.

The whole confrontation between Freddy and Jason seemed somewhat pointless and anti-climatic. They both won't die. When Freddy loses an arm, another one just pops up. Jason just isn't the most emotive character. He's kinda like a statue who kills. Some of the calculated crowd pleasing moments were funny. I thought it was cute when Freddy (whose severed head was being carried by Jason) gave a wink to the audience at the end. Wow, that's a relief. I thought poor Freddy might be dead!

I prefer seeing more natural looking breast implants.

•••• the implants, how about real breasts, period?

The whole confrontation between Freddy and Jason seemed somewhat pointless and anti-climatic.

There are two moments from that fight that were cut that they should've left in. One, Freddy says to Jason, "You're slow, you're $tupid, and you've got no style!" But he delivered it as only Freddy can (this moive was sadly lacking in Freddy one-liners). The seocnd is Freddya ttempts to knee Jason in the groin, and Jason doesn't really react, adn Freddy then says somethign hysterically funny that I'm not sure I can repeat here.

Excuse me for sticking my head into this board, but I find some of the reactions to this film to be very troubling. First off, I must admit that I don't generally watch horror films. I detest films which glorify violence against women. Horror films are usually too low-brow for me too. They appeal to the same crowd that buys Toby Keith records and watches NASCAR races.

Why do you want to watch young actresses being exploited and forced to undress? I find it humiliating and not entertaining. Exploitation is never a pretty thing. In earlier decades, such actresses would be forced to sleep with a producer for such a part. Now, they have to settle for being leered at by male moviegoers. Famously, in the 1980's Roger Ebert denouced the horror film genre. Its violence against women repulsed him. He suggested that the fans of these films were sexually frustrated males filled with hostility towards women. A look at any slasher film proves him right.

Why the comment about not liking breast implants? As if women aren't under enough pressure to have large breasts. Now, their breasts must be perfectly shaped too. There are also some disturbing aspects to men who don't like plastic surgery. Some men are disturbed by it because it represents a threat to them. In a racist society, some men are worried about people "passing" for Anglos. Southern bigots used to be worried about light-skinned blacks passing for "white". Now, some are worried that non-Anglos (Jews,Italians, etc.) will be able to pass as Anglos. They consider plastic surgery to be an insidious weapon. They want Jews to be visible, much as they were in Nazi Germany when they were forced to wear yellow stars.

Some of the posts for Freddy vs Jason mention severed heads in the film. I find this to be particularly disturbing; that anyone would find the brutal beheading of a human being to be entertaining. Every since I saw the video of the beheading of Nick Berg, I can no longer find "beheadings" to be acceptable entertainment for anyone. Beyond the anti-Semitism of his death, many found the grisly violence to be "entertaining". Horror films appeal to the most base elements in mankind. Isn't it time we ban them. There is enough violence in the world today. We don't need endless images of imaginary carnage.

One post mentioned a desire to see more realism in these films. Let me suggest another film, based on real life: "Schindler's List". This film contains some extraordinary characters with very realistic motives. I found one of the characters to be particularly notable. The Nazi Concentration camp commander is tormented by his lust for a beautiful Jewish woman. This fuels his violence. This is a film which helps us to understand the human condition and the dynamics of hatred.

To end on a lighter note, there are some horror films which I consider to be acceptable. Last weekend, TCM showed King Kong. Isn't that a classic? I also like a film from 2002: "Eight-legged Freaks". It showed me what truly horrible monsters spiders are.

I think that you're wrong on so many counts that I don't even know where to begin.

Isn't it time we ban them. There is enough violence in the world today.

What country are you in? Because here in the USA we have the first amendment, that protects all forms of expreson that don't present a clear and present danger, even stuff that you find offensive.

Why the comment about not liking breast implants?

Most guys who are aginst breast implants don't put women under that much pressure to have large breasts. Speaking for myself (and I'm morally opposed to breast implants on the grounds that they don't look or feel real) I prefer real small cute boobs, or big boobs with some bounce to them to the rubber balls that women are having stuffed into their chests.

Also Ebert didn't denounce the whole genre. He denounced the Friday the 13th film and there clones. That segment is an extra on the Halloween special edition where he trashed Friday the 13th and gives the thumbs up to Halloween. He also liked The Re-animater, Evil Dead 2, Return of the Living Dead and both Dawn of the Deads, in fact he considers the 1978 version to be one of the greatest horror films of all time.

Also the claims of violence aginst women as a result of wanting to see women suffer has been heavly debated among film scholars, with most of the more sensable ones giving horror flicks more credit. In the kinds of movies you are talking about the women ends up being the stongest character in the film. the douch-bag jock boyfriend usually gets killed because he was too stupid/scared to protect himself or her and the "final female" is the one who vanquishes the monster. Several essays have been writen about the final female character type (used in the Friday the 13th, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Alien, Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer series) frequently even embodies a more conservative ideal. While the breast baring tramp, and pot smoking, beer drinking boys die horrable deaths the good girl who's not having pre-maratal sex or taking substences that are illegal for her to buy is the one who wins in the end.

Oh and BTW I like realistic heart breaking movies like Schindler's list as much as the next guy but man does not live on a diet of health food and intelectualism alone. Sometimes you want the cinematic equel of pringles potato chips.

Why do you want to watch young actresses being exploited and forced to undress?

Forced? Since when does being paid a sum of money = forced? If these "exploited" actresses weren't willing to show their hooters, they wouldn't accept roles where they have to show their jugs.

I can no longer find "beheadings" to be acceptable entertainment for anyone.

And who died and made you queen of the multiverse? Some of us are quite capable of distinguishing between horrible acts of violence perpetrated upon a real person in real life, and fictional movies. I have not, and do not plan to ever watch a real life beheading if I can help it, and in fact find it somewhat creepy even to watch it in movies (thanks to some nightmares I had as a kid) but whether I choose to watch movies with characters being beheaded isn't for you to decide, your majesty.

Brian, while you may feel that horror films are the equivalent of pringles, I still feel they appeal to the most base elements in mankind. Watching carnage for "fun": it's no more respectable than gawking at mutilated bodies at the scene of an automobile accident. The obsession with dead bodies inevitably leads down the path to necrophilia. There is a dangerous connection between sex and violence.

Why the comment about not liking breast implants? As if women aren't under enough pressure to have large breasts. Now, their breasts must be perfectly shaped too. There are also some disturbing aspects to men who don't like plastic surgery. Some men are disturbed by it because it represents a threat to them. In a racist society, some men are worried about people "passing" for Anglos. Southern bigots used to be worried about light-skinned blacks passing for "white". Now, some are worried that non-Anglos (Jews,Italians, etc.) will be able to pass as Anglos. They consider plastic surgery to be an insidious weapon. They want Jews to be visible, much as they were in Nazi Germany when they were forced to wear yellow stars.

So in a round about way, you just called me an Anti-Semite, AGAIN! Broken ••••••• record already! Are you sure you aren't working for the Bush administration becuase you are spinning like an F5 tornado right now and to be quite frank, it's pissing me off. I don't like breat implants beucase they are FAKE! What's so racist about preferring women who are naturally beautfil over these ••••••• Barbie dolls like Pamela Anderson who IMHO is one of the ugliest women on Earth? I can't win with you can I? Reconstructive surgeyr for major birth defects or recovery froma terrible accident is one thing, but people who are perfectly healthy deliberately allowing themselves to be cut open and altered like an X-Files assassin is just not my forte. Why is that so bad, and why do you seem to have it in for me (I know you were talking about me beucase I'm the only one who made an anti-Fake Boob comment).

The obsession with dead bodies inevitably leads down the path to necrophilia.

WHAT?!? Since when? Not even Jerry Falwaell has been dumb enough to make this baseless assumption. I enjoy fake violence. Deal with it. I love horror flicks. I like to watch the bad guy in an action meet a bloody demise. Yet, in real life, I can't even look at a papercut without wanting to wretch? Why? Cause rather than control my viewing habits the way you (and a certain politcal party from 1930s Germnay that held power for about adecade) would like to, my parents allowed me to wathc all the violent moives I wanted (except for A Clockwork orange, which they still won't let me watch even though I'm 22. They'll let me pay $16 to see both Kill Bills, but not ACO. Hmm), they just made sure I understood that what I was seeing was as fake as George Bush's personality. They made sure that I, even at a young age, knew that those guys I'd just seen riddled with bullets by Mel Gibson got up and went home after the director yelled cut. And you know what? I was about the only kid in my class in grade school who never tried to reenact fight scenes. Monty Python sketches yes, but fights, no.

There is a dangerous connection between sex and violence.

People who are violent have sex, so therefore sex is bad. Are you sure you're not Catholic? Sex is great, violence isn't. What part of this simple equation is so difficult to grasp? Using your logic we should ban all sex and start growing people, like with Peter's infamous Jem'heddar idea. Tell me Rona, when you read 1984, did you see it as a novel or an instruction manual?

Actually I would even say that horror films have a very important place in the human experience. It does take the mose base emotions and allowes people to deal with them in a safe confined fantasy world where it really can not hurt them. Check out Gerard Jones' great book "Killion Mosters", where he refutes much of the arguments that both the left and right heap upon violent media.

Rona Feinberg: Horror films are usually too low-brow for me too. They appeal to the same crowd that buys Toby Keith records and watches NASCAR races.
Luigi Novi: And what’s wrong with Toby Keith and NASCAR?

Rona Feinberg: Why do you want to watch young actresses being exploited and forced to undress? I find it humiliating and not entertaining. Exploitation is never a pretty thing. In earlier decades, such actresses would be forced to sleep with a producer for such a part. Now, they have to settle for being leered at by male moviegoers.
Luigi Novi: Why does having a nude part in a horror film necessarily mean exploitation? Those who take such parts choose to take them, and many women do not feel shame or embarrassment at being nude. Were the nude models I drew in art school being “exploited”?

Rona Feinberg: Famously, in the 1980's Roger Ebert denouced the horror film genre. Its violence against women repulsed him.
Luigi Novi: Given that Ebert gave three out of four stars to Scream, and stated that he liked it, gave four out of four stars to Signs, four out of four stars to the original Psycho, four stars to Alien, three and a half to Aliens, as well favorable reviews to other extremely gory and bloody films like Kill Bill vol. I, to which he gave four stars as well, it is more likely that you have simply deliberately misquoted Ebert, a symptom of the same poorly thought-out logic, specious reasoning and self-righteous judgmentalism that permeates the rest of your post.

Rona Feinberg: He suggested that the fans of these films were sexually frustrated males filled with hostility towards women. A look at any slasher film proves him right.
Luigi Novi: How does merely watching a slasher film prove the mental state of its fans? Because you don’t like them means that you know the state of mind of those who do, and that you know they’re sexually frustrated? That’s a bit judgmental, don’t you think?

Rona Feinberg: Why the comment about not liking breast implants? As if women aren't under enough pressure to have large breasts. Now, their breasts must be perfectly shaped too. There are also some disturbing aspects to men who don't like plastic surgery. Some men are disturbed by it because it represents a threat to them. In a racist society, some men are worried about people "passing" for Anglos. Southern bigots used to be worried about light-skinned blacks passing for "white". Now, some are worried that non-Anglos (Jews,Italians, etc.) will be able to pass as Anglos. They consider plastic surgery to be an insidious weapon. They want Jews to be visible, much as they were in Nazi Germany when they were forced to wear yellow stars.
Luigi Novi: What in the world does this have to do with breast implants? You’re equating the views of white racists towards those of other races with guys who prefer women with natural breasts? And what do you mean that southern bigots used to disdain light-skinned blacks, but that worry that Jews and Italians pass as Anglos “now”? “Now” when? Do you have any awareness of how incoherent the logic is in this passage?

Rona Feinberg: Some of the posts for Freddy vs Jason mention severed heads in the film. I find this to be particularly disturbing; that anyone would find the brutal beheading of a human being to be entertaining. Every since I saw the video of the beheading of Nick Berg, I can no longer find "beheadings" to be acceptable entertainment for anyone. Beyond the anti-Semitism of his death, many found the grisly violence to be "entertaining".
Luigi Novi: Many found what grisly violence to be entertaining? That of horror films, or of Nick Berg? Why do you start off referencing horror films, then mention Berg, and then make a vague reference to “the” violence, as if to equate fans of slasher flicks to watching a person being murdered in real life? Do you have any concept of how insulting this statement is? Equating the fictional deaths of characters in horror films (which some may enjoy simply because the films are so cheesy that the viewer cannot easily suspend their disbelief to be disturbed by it), with a hostage killed in real life? Who found Berg’s death entertaining? Where? When? What are their names? These are people you know personally? And for that matter, what were you doing watching that video? Most of us here probably have chosen not to watch that video to begin with, yet your judging horror fans even though what they watch is fictional, going so far as to equate them with racists and sexual exploiters, and to presume to know their state of mind, even though you watch videos of actual people being murdered? Don’t you think this is a bit hypocritical?

Rona Feinberg: Horror films appeal to the most base elements in mankind. Isn't it time we ban them.
Luigi Novi: No. It’s time that those who do not understand the importance of freedom of expression to learn about it.

Rona Feinberg: There is enough violence in the world today. We don't need endless images of imaginary carnage.
Luigi Novi: No one said we did. People watch them because they want them. Not because they need them.

Rona Feinberg: One post mentioned a desire to see more realism in these films. Let me suggest another film, based on real life: "Schindler's List". This film contains some extraordinary characters with very realistic motives. I found one of the characters to be particularly notable. The Nazi Concentration camp commander is tormented by his lust for a beautiful Jewish woman. This fuels his violence. This is a film which helps us to understand the human condition and the dynamics of hatred.
Luigi Novi: Which is an interesting parallel to your own bigoted, judgmental views of those who have tastes in film different from yours.

Rona F.: Brian, while you may feel that horror films are the equivalent of pringles, I still feel they appeal to the most base elements in mankind. Watching carnage for "fun": it's no more respectable than gawking at mutilated bodies at the scene of an automobile accident.
Luigi Novi: The main difference being that the ones in films are fake.

Rona F.: The obsession with dead bodies inevitably leads down the path to necrophilia.
Luigi Novi: There is no evidence for this whatsoever. Medical examiners and morticians work with dead bodies for a living, and presumably are not given to necrophilic acts any more than anyone else. Leonardo Da Vinci conducted autopsies to study anatomy. Does this mean he was a necrophiliac? This preposterous statement is simply you projecting your own feelings of discomfort upon others, using an scientifically unsupported statement that qualifies more as propaganda than as fact.

There is a link between horror films and real life violence. Jeffrey Dahmer enjoyed horror movies and look what that lead to. When he cut open the abdomens of his victims, he was so aroused he would masturbate. John Wayne Gacy would have an invoulentary orgasm when he saw blood spuring out his victims. Horror films fetishise dead bodies and violence. The fans are brutes: during these films, they cheer for the killer and urge him to "kill the b*tch".

l

Rona, there can be "links" between almost anything if you look hard enough. However, saying that the media is the cause of violence is avoiding the true issue. It is the person, not the tv, movie, or music that commits the act. Think about it, millions of people watch horror movies regularly, yet they don't go out and kill people. Many people (although most won't admit to it) view pornography at some point in some form or another, but they don't become rapists. People like Jeffrey Dahmer are the minority, not the majority. For every Dahmer there are millions of normal human beings who lead normal lives.

Rona... what about the millions of other people who watch horror/violent films and don't murder? I mean, wouldn't Dahmer be the exception and not the rule?

And what do Dahmer and Gacy's sexual activities during their grisly murders have anything to do with horror films!?! I don't understand the leap ... er... connection.

Horror films teach disrespect for women. I refuse to believe that an endless stream of violent and hateful images of women have no effect on men. Advertisers pay millions because they believe only 30 seconds can influence people...well, how about 2 hour movies?

Rona F.: There is a link between horror films and real life violence.
Luigi Novi: An assertion made without any empirical evidence.

Rona F.: Jeffrey Dahmer enjoyed horror movies and look what that lead to. When he cut open the abdomens of his victims, he was so aroused he would masturbate
Luigi Novi: This reasoning is so flimsy that one can only wonder at the subconscious motives for arguing it.

You obviously do not understand what a logical fallacy is, or else you might realize that this is an example of the “Causation-Correlation” fallacy. The fact that two things coincide (1. They looked at horror movies, and 2. They were sick murderers), does not mean that one causes the other. In order to prove a causal link, you would have to demonstrate that those who watch such films generally become murderers, and that those who don’t do not. Obviously, this is not the case, as there are millions of people who watch horror films, whereas serial killers not only account for less than 1% of criminals, but less than 1% of murderers. If horror films caused people to become murderers, then we should see a higher incidence of murder among its fans. We don’t. Most of the people on this board, myself included, have likely seen horror films in our lives, and have not become murderers. How do you explain this?

Dahmer’s development as a serial killer likely had nothing to do with his taste in films, and likely stemmed from innate aspects of his personality, and possibly his genetics. Dahmer began torturing animals at a young age, as do many such criminals. When did he begin watching horror films? Serial killers and sex criminals use violent images and porn because it helps them enjoy their fantasies, not because those things cause them to develop them. By blaming his crimes on horror films—despite the fact that the vast majority of horror fans do not commit crimes—you are absolving Dahmer of responsibility for his crimes, which I find appalling.

Rona F.: John Wayne Gacy would have an invoulentary orgasm when he saw blood spuring out his victims.
Luigi Novi: Um, did Gacy watch horror films? You pointed out that Dahmer did, in order to argue a connection between the two, but made no mention of this in regard to Gacy. Is there some reason for this?

Rona F.: Horror films fetishise dead bodies and violence. The fans are brutes: during these films, they cheer for the killer and urge him to "kill the b*tch".
Luigi Novi: What are you talking about? You’re insulting all the millions of fans of an entire genre of film? And how exactly do you know that they do this if you never watch these films? What, because you’ve noticed some ill-mannered hooligans doing this in the few horror films you might’ve seen means that all of them do this? Where do you get this flimsy logic from?

Rona F.: Horror films teach disrespect for women. I refuse to believe that an endless stream of violent and hateful images of women have no effect on men.
Luigi Novi: In other words, you believe what want to make believe is true, and not what the evidence shows, and willfully ignore any criticism, and other valid points that the various posters here have brought up in response to your statements. Are you merely trolling the boards to stir up emotions by insulting people? Or is there some other reason you’re ignoring the arguments being put to you here?

Rona F.: Advertisers pay millions because they believe only 30 seconds can influence people...well, how about 2 hour movies?
Luigi Novi: How about acknowledging that commercials designed to attract people to go see movies is entirely different from movies getting people to imitate its content, which they are not designed to do, and not what they end up doing, since most people who see violent images are disturbed by them, rather than empowered by them?

Horror films teach disrespect for women. - Rona F.

You must have seen different horror films than I. (And incidentally, if you have seen as many horror films as are required for you to pass judgment on the entire genre... not to mention its audience... shouldn't we be worried about how many murders you've commited?)

In the horror films I've seen, including the A Nightmare on Elm Street films, the Friday the 13th films, the Scream trilogy, the Halloween films, the Alien films, not to mention Prom Night and Psycho, women are not only the heroes in those pictures... they are often the sole survivors.

I think it's okay not to like horror films; they're not my cup of tea, and I don't especially like watching them (I like suspense films, and Evil Dead I and II were great, but for the most part, no). But do I think horror movies cause violence? Not really; there may be a few cases, but they are most likely the exceptions, not the rules.

That's not to say, of course, that there aren't hordes of trashy horror films that feature nude women and carved up bodies for no real purpose. But then again, there are hordes of trashy action films with nude women and shot up bodies, hordes of trashy comedies with nude women, etc. There are trashy films in every genre.

Also, I disagree with the statement that in this post 9-11 world, the horror film is an unacceptable film genre. In World War II, the horror film was one of the most popular genres of film because people wanted to take their mind off the war by watching obviously fantasy shockers. Nobody (at least nobody I know) wants to watch a film where a real man's head is beheaded, but we may watch movies where fictional people have violent acts done to them and we know it's fake and nobody really got hurt.

Your attacks on Horrer films could be applied to Anything. Should I say that Chick flicks as a genre are disrespectful to women because most of them show that they need a man in their life?

I find Rona F.'s posts to be disrespectful to women. Well, not just to women, but to everyone. "I don't like it so nobody should be allowed to see it". Whatever. You aren't my mom, and even if you were (thank heaven you're not) I'm not a minor anyway, so your opinion on what I should be allowed to see is irrelevant.

I find that part of Ronas post which refers to plastic surgery anti-semitic:

There are also some disturbing aspects to men who don't like plastic surgery. Some men are disturbed by it because it represents a threat to them. In a racist society, some men are worried about people "passing" for Anglos. Southern bigots used to be worried about light-skinned blacks passing for "white". Now, some are worried that non-Anglos (Jews,Italians, etc.) will be able to pass as Anglos. They consider plastic surgery to be an insidious weapon. They want Jews to be visible, much as they were in Nazi Germany when they were forced to wear yellow stars.

This implies that:

- Jews, Italians and non-Anglos have easily recognizable features (the dark, hook-nosed Jew I guess)

- which they would want to change/hide by plastic surgery in order to insert themselves into an anglo society.

I consider both of these points to be clichees and anti-semitic.

As for comparing no plastic surgery to wearing a yellow star... give it a break, please.

(Rona, dear, maybe you should take some medication against paranoia?)

I said this before on the F-9/11 board, but I went off on a huge tangent which went way off topic and was thus inappropriate, but I guess I'll say it again for whatever reason. I don't think Rona is a real person. I think she's a straw man set up for amusement purposes, probably by the Kahane guy. He or she is trying to satirize a sort of lower-upper middle class Neocon mindset. Equating horror films with necrophilia as a basis for banning them, and the whole breast implant racism angle are arguments absurd to the point where I would be very surprised if they were anything other than a means of getting a rise out of people. And aside from the messages themselves, their composure, their sort of flat questioning manner, such as in "Isn't it time we ban them." is reminiscent to me of the anonymous flooder. Though that's more of an instinctual reaction than anything else. But does anybody else feel it? Anyway, as I said the last time I wrote out a similar message, if I'm wrong, then Rona, I humbly ask your forgiveness. I'm extremely sorry and embarrassed.

Certainly not an implausible theory. There are certain similarities between them, not the least of which is the extremely minimal way each of them responds to any counterarguments put to them.

Again, more ignorant attacks on my posts. While I don't expect everyone to agree with me, I find it pathetic the lengths some people go to try to discredit me.

Mr. Webber, stop your tired attacks on my politics. I've said before I'm not a "Neo-Con" (or whatever other terms you use). I'm a Democrat. I find it disgusting that anyone would praise trash such as slasher films. There are so many worthwhile films available. Anyone who's fixated on watching cut up bodies has a problem, not me.

I personally find debating whether or not posters actually exist to be offensive. Maybe my name isn't really Mike and I'm not really conservative. None of you would know. Let's just debate the points we bring up and not debate who we are.

I find these comments to be interesting in several respects. First, almost all of the posts defending horror movies are male. This is no surprise. In some of my classes in college, the issue of depictions of violence against women in films has been discussed. When the professor asked those students who liked horror films to raise their hands, most of the guys' hands went up. The womens' hands remained down. I think we should ask why men find horror films so fascinating, while most women don't like them. And most women don't like them. They are dragged to these films by their boyfriends. I think very few women go to these films on their own.

I take exception to the point that critics view horror films as presenting positive female heroines. In fact, almost every book by a feminist author I have read has condemed the depictions of brutality against women in horror films. It's a bit dishonest to say most critics are praising slasher films.

I don't mean to agree with Rona, but I do find guys who are addicted to slasher films to be creepy.

Cindy,

I don't watch slasher films, either, but neither does my friend (he is more sensitive, he often will turn off a TV docu about war or surgery.)

I can understand those nitpickers that say part of the attraction is that many of these movies are done so badly, since other bad movies can be fun in a way, too.

Your question reminds of sth. I read in a book about different styles of thinking between man and woman, and how early socialisation shows. The author described a scene in kindergarten with two small children, about 5 years old, a boy and a girl. It was the 6th of December, when Saint Nicolas (Bishop) visits the children to see whether they've been naugthy or nice - they either get given sweets or a cane (though of course, everybody gets sweets today).

Anyway, when the dressed-up strange adult came in, the little girl was frightened and went to her mother. The little boy went on playing and didn't seem to notice anything special. His mother had a hard time getting him to participate. Afterwards, the mother of the boy said to the mother of the girl how "brave" her boy had been. The mother of the girl, however, thougt that the boy was unafraid because he didn't fully comprehend the situation, while the little girl was more developed and therefore took part in the situation too much, it was too real for her.

I wonder if the same is true for adult man and woman? Several male posters have said they can clearly seperate between movies (fake) and real horror (news etc.) I can't seperate: if it looks real, it scares me. But then, woman are generally said to put themselves more easily into another persons shoes and consider the impact of their words and actions on other people and their feelings, while man often don't consider the consequences on people different from them (man who can't understand that their girl-friend/wife reacts different to what they say than their male friend would).

and yes, the above is a generalization, which doesn't apply to 100% of the males and females all the time, but to some people some of the time.

Feedback - is my assumption right?

First, almost all of the posts defending horror movies are male. - Cindy

Unfortunately, Cindy, that proves nothing. Most of the people who post at Nitcentral period are male. Regrettably, we have very few women posting on any of these boards. That means that the odds are very good that those who will be defending the genre will also be boys.

Strangely enough, most of the horror fans I've met have been women. It's to the degree that I find it a strange phenomenom, because it runs counter to what my knowledge of what human behavior tells me should be true. I've noticed this while living in Dallas and where I currently reside in Illinois, so it's not too much of a localized thing. As a matter of fact, the only reason I've seen this film Freddy vs. Jason, lest we forget what film we're discussing) was because a co-worker named Kelley, a woman, loaned me her copy.

I do remember going to see one of the Friday the 13ths in Orange, Texas back in the early-to-mid-'80s. I remember at the end of the film, when some kid supposedly killed Jason, that I was the only one who cheered. The rest of the audience was silent. I almost got the feeling that to them, cheering the death of Jason was an inappropriate response. I found that disturbing. However, I should say, though, that overall, the fans of these films that I've met have been pretty decent, normal people. To the best of my knowledge, they haven't been serial killers.

I don't personally like slasher films. (Let's specify what we're talking about here. There's Horror and there's Slasher, okay?) I wouldn't mind seeing the first Halloween and Friday the 13th again, though. But that's another point. One thing that has happened to the Slasher film genre is that the violence, the killing, has become increasingly outrageous and over the top, with no sense of realism to them. Speaking out of complete ignorance, I would suspect that the Freddy Krueger films were responsible for this, though it's possible that Sam Raimi's films were. This, I think, was done not only because of positive audience responses, but because it also helped deflect some of the arguments against the genre that Rona has brought up.

Again, I don't like Slasher Flicks. I rarely see them. I certainly don't seek them out. But I wouldn't advocate banning them anymore than I'd advocate banning chick flick or teen comedies. If I don't like the genre, I generally ignore it.

"I like to watch." - Chauncy Gardner

I'm inclined to agree with Constanze on this one.
It's a way of looking at it that I hadn't thought of before.

And while most of my friends enjoy horror movies, the guys (such as myself) are the ones who seem to enjoy them more.

Perhaps the reasoning behind this is the adrenaline rush that people tend to get from the tension, and release there of, in the movie. This rush is not unlike that which people experience on rollercoasters.

So couldn't horror movies be considered the emotional (as opposed to physical) equivalent of rollercoasters?

While I could be wrong, I believe that it's the previously mentioned tension/relase that draw people to horrors, not the blood/gore. I personally don't like all the blood and guts, in the movies. It's the mood created by the music, lighting, and the special effects, that make it enjoyable.

While I don't expect everyone to agree with me, I find it pathetic the lengths some people go to try to discredit me.

You discredit yourself with your basless assumptions, straw-man arguemtns, and other logical fallcies.

Mr. Webber, stop your tired attacks on my politics. I've said before I'm not a "Neo-Con" (or whatever other terms you use). I'm a Democrat.

Could've fooled me. Your Israeli Supremacy tirades read like neoCon lit to me. Now beofre you go calling me an anti-Semite (apparently your favorite pasttime) for the trillionth lying time, I think ANY country that beelive itself morlaly superior to others based solely on the religion of the majority of it's inhabitants is wrong to the max. I happen to like Israel and the Israeli people, just not the dunderheads currently running it. Not liking Shaorn doesn't make me a Jew Hater anymore than not liking my co-worker Charlotte mean I hate Latinas.

I find it disgusting that anyone would praise trash such as slasher films.

Who said anything about praise? What's so bad about wanting to shut off your brain for 90 minutes and get some cheap thrills? There's nothing wrong with escapism, especially when there's plenty to scape from. Totalitarian fanatics like you for instance. You can have my DVD Box Set of the Scream Trilogy when you can pry it from my cold dead hands!

There are so many worthwhile films available. Anyone who's fixated on watching cut up bodies has a problem, not me.

Again, you are insultingly NOT differentiating. FAKE bodies. FAKE. F-A-K-E! These movies are NOT FLIPPIN' REAL! Did the part where I emntion that while I can watch movies with buckets of fake blood the site of the real thing grosses me out? My parents didn't treat me like a Fabrege egg, and taught the difference between relaity and fantasy (par of the reaosn I'm an atheist). People who get off on seeing REAL bodies mutilate dlike that do have a sickness, but to equate people like me, and Luigi, and Vargo, and Fitzie with them is at best, frankly $tupid.

Would referring to someone as a "totalitarian fanatic" qualify as ad hominem?

How else would you describe someone who is trying to enforce her views on everyone, and refers to any oppsoing opinion as "pathetic", AND resorts to calling one particular person who disaghrees with her an Anti-Semite for no good reason other than to try and get a rise out of him? Maybe the fanatic part counts as ad hominem, but the 1st part would appear to be on the money.

Rona F: Again, more ignorant attacks on my posts.
Luigi Novi: Ignorant? Why, because they disagree with you? If they’re ignorant, why don’t you respond to them directly, and refute their arguments?

Rona F: While I don't expect everyone to agree with me, I find it pathetic the lengths some people go to try to discredit me.
Luigi Novi: The lengths to which people have refuted your arguments include using reasoning, logic and facts to disprove them. If this reasoning is not valid, why don’t you respond to in order to explain why it does not hold up?

Rona F: Anyone who's fixated on watching cut up bodies has a problem, not me.
Luigi Novi: And you have not demonstrated that fans of the genre watch those films for that reason. You have instead retreated from the specific points brought up here to refute your arguments by not responding to them.

Cindy: I find these comments to be interesting in several respects. First, almost all of the posts defending horror movies are male.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps because most of the posters at Nitcentral are male.

Cindy: In some of my classes in college, the issue of depictions of violence against women in films has been discussed. When the professor asked those students who liked horror films to raise their hands, most of the guys' hands went up. The womens' hands remained down. I think we should ask why men find horror films so fascinating, while most women don't like them.
Luigi Novi: An interesting question to explore, to be sure, but you could say the same thing about other genres as well, like action, science fiction, etc.

Cindy: And most women don't like them. They are dragged to these films by their boyfriends. I think very few women go to these films on their own.
Luigi Novi: You could make the same point about women who take their boyfriends or husbands to so-called “chick flicks” (or what my brother-in-law refers to as “two hour douche commercials”).

Cindy: I don't mean to agree with Rona, but I do find guys who are addicted to slasher films to be creepy.
Luigi Novi: Maybe, but Rona didn’t simply say this about addicts, but about fans in general, which is a bit judgmental.

constanze: I wonder if the same is true for adult man and woman? Several male posters have said they can clearly seperate between movies (fake) and real horror (news etc.) I can't seperate: if it looks real, it scares me.
Luigi Novi: I understand, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But each person’s suspension of belief varies, as does the ability of the filmmaker to create a realistic scene that convinces. I’ve never been bothered by the horror films I’ve seen (even though I’m not a fan of the genre, and haven’t even seen this one), but I found the rape scene in The Accused to be extremely difficult to watch, and I wanted to leave the room. I’ve found myself equally disturbed when watching movies with similar scenes, like Species 2 or An Eye for an Eye. Maybe because those seemed more real to me than some loser with makeup or a hockey mask on his face and a clawed glove sticking it to a mannequin filled with corn syrup and red food dye.

Darth Sarcasm: Would referring to someone as a "totalitarian fanatic" qualify as ad hominem?
Luigi Novi: No, but it would qualify as a flame, and it should be deleted.

Brian Webber: How else would you describe someone who is trying to enforce her views on everyone, and refers to any oppsoing opinion as "pathetic", AND resorts to calling one particular person who disaghrees with her an Anti-Semite for no good reason other than to try and get a rise out of him?
Luigi Novi: Depends. On AIM or in email, possibly in the same manner as you, admittedly. Here at Nit-C, I’d attempt to simply discredit her arguments without namecalling, since that’s not allowed here at Nit-C.

I should disclose here that I suggested to Jake on AIM the other day that the portion of Rona’s posts where she calls all horror fans “brutes” should be deleted. For consistency’s sake, I would suggest the same with Brian’s “fanatic” comment.

First of all, why all of the mean-spirited focus on ATTACKING my posts. In retrospect, I did probably overstate the situation by saying horror films ultimately lead down the path to necrophilia. I don't think anyone can deny that horror films EROTICISE VIOLENCE. What is the ultimate result of such eroticization? I'm sorry, but after watching some slasher films, I was left with only one conclusion: they were made by someone with a hatred for women. Some of the slasher films are so hateful towards women that they seem to be sending the message; "The only good woman is a dead woman". In other words, it glorifies the mindset of male serial killers who murder women. There is a link between sex and violence in those murders as most serial killers prey on prostitutes. To be more clear on the matter, I'm not saying that all men who watch slasher films will become murders. I'm only asking why films (with no socially redeeming value) that appeal to the most base elements in maknkind should be made.

On a more disturbing personal level, several posters have attacked my comments on plastic surgery. I'm sorry, but this is a subject that I've been thinking about a lot recently. There has been quite a bit of anguish in my family lately. My niece, who is in high school, has been harassed (in 2004, Staten Island, New York...of all places!) in school for having a "Jewish nose". Cruel taunts such as "Jew nose" ARE anti-Semitic. My niece has been pleading with her mother to get her a nose operation (She's too young now). When I read comments pretending that anti-Semitism doesn't exist, it infuriates me. I'm not going to go on a rant and say that the males who taunted her are acting like Hitler youth, but there is an undeniable anti-Semitic element to their behavior. To try and pretend that women with non-Aryan features aren't mocked is wrong. The Aryan beauty ideal is worshipped in this country. I mentioned Italian women because they too have been mocked for having prominent noses.

I also wish that Brian would stop trying to tarr me with the label of "Neo-Con". I'm a Democrat. I haven't praised Bush anywhere. All I have tried to point out is that perhaps the world is a better place with Saddam out of power. Other than Iraq (and some positive attitudes towards Israel), I DON'T like Bush. Much of what he stands for I detest. I've said I don't like him trying to inject his Christian "values" into laws which would affect everyone. I've said I don't like his trying to write discrimination in law (specifically his attempts at a federal ban on same sex marriage). So how the hell are these Neo-Con views, Brian?

Maybe, I don't like Moore (for my own reasons), but that's my right. If I don't like him, you don't need to attack me. I don't want four more years of Bush. I feel this country missed out on having Gore and Lieberman as President and Vice-President. Maybe, you despise me for being more of a Lieberman-Democrat than an Ultra-Leftists. But you have to remember that most pople aren't Ultra -Leftists either. Winston Churchill is famous for a statement he made: "If someone isn't liberal at twenty, they don't have half a heart. If someone isn't conservative at 40, they don't have half a brain." Brian, this simply means people mellow out and become more realistic about how life really works. As a teen in the 1980's (I'm 34), I absolutely HATED Ronald Reagan with a passion. As I got older, married, and had a daughter (6 years old now), I mellowed out. My life has changed, and I have different priorities now.

I think too many posters are responding to Brian's assesments of my posts, such as his mentioning Jerry Falwell. That's unfair, I detested everything he and the Moral Majority stood for in the eighties, and I still detest him. Stop trying to project your ideas onto anyone who might disagree with you. I'm secular (totally atheist). I don't want anyone trying to force their religious (superstitious) beliefs on me or anyone else who doesn't want them. Brian, I've never tried to denouce you as "evil" (that's a true "Neo-Con" attitude), you probably have a good heart. I just wish you would attack me with such venom ("get your head out of your ass").

So, if you want to watch slasher films, that's your business. But I do ask that you think about the implications of the grisly violence depicted. I'm not condeming all horror films. I too, thought "Evil Dead II" was an stylish and inventive film. But that wasn't what I would call one of those "stalk and cut up women films".

Brian --

The whole point is to attack a poster's argument, not the poster him/herself.

Rona, I'm really, really sorry. From the bottom of my heart. Mike was right, that was very offensive of me. Is there anything I can do to make it up to you?

Rona, Sorry to disagree, but I personally think minorities are tons hotter than the aryean ideal.

As for movies promoting violence against women, often times, just as many men die. It would be more fair to say that it would incite violence against people...

I don't think anyone can deny that horror films EROTICISE VIOLENCE.

I can. I've never gotten a boner from watching Freddy, Jason, Michael, whoever, slashing someone to ribbons, as it would seem to be implied by use of the term EROTICISE.

Actually, that term also sounds like it might be a new diet program coming out from Richard Simmons, EROTICISE THE POUNDS AWAY!!!! *shudder* Now THAT'S scary!

after watching some slasher films, I was left with only one conclusion: they were made by someone with a hatred for women.

Then why the [f-word] is the sole survivor in these movies often a woman? Hmm? Oh, you won't have an answer, will you, you'll just ignore that completely, just like you have every other argument used against you.

Bottom line, the rest of your post is not worth my time to read, since apparently you don't take the time to bother to read anyone else's arguments and instead harp on things like the "oh it makes hte jefry dahmer mastrubate!!!" or "they hatez the wimins!!!" bull[poop] you already brought up and people have argued against.

Bottom line, you have free will. You don't want to see these movies DON'T [INTERCOURSE]ING WATCH THEM! And also, don't make a troll of yourself going into threads and bashing the whole genre. Leave threads like this to people who like the genre.

I just rewatched this movie last night, and it's absolutely not what you make it out to be. It's over the top and almost campy. And the strongest character in the movie is a woman. Your mission = failed.

Nice way to show restraint, Brian—er, I mean Anonymous.

Rona F.: First of all, why all of the mean-spirited focus on ATTACKING my posts.
Luigi Novi: First of all, the vast majority of the responses to your posts here have been emotionally reserved, and have focused on discrediting your arguments on the basis of their internal inconsistencies, rather than “attacking” them with invective, Brian’s being the exception.

As for why we’ve responded as we’ve done, well, speaking only for myself, I have merely responded to your statements by pointing out the flaws in your logic, the manner in which your conclusions do not square with observable facts, and by criticizing the way you refuse to respond to these refutations, choosing instead to stonewall the well-made points that the others here have made to discredit your arguments, perhaps because you are not interested in an actual discussion of your ideas. If I’m wrong on this, then please respond to the specific counterarguments made here that show how flawed your statements are.

Rona F.: In retrospect, I did probably overstate the situation by saying horror films ultimately lead down the path to necrophilia. I don't think anyone can deny that horror films EROTICISE VIOLENCE.
Luigi Novi: I deny it. There is no evidence for it. Therefore, I deny it.

Rona F.: What is the ultimate result of such eroticization? I'm sorry, but after watching some slasher films, I was left with only one conclusion: they were made by someone with a hatred for women.
Luigi Novi: Which probably says more about your own preconceptions and biases that you took to theater when watching them than it does about anything in the minds of the filmmakers.

Rona F.: Some of the slasher films are so hateful towards women that they seem to be sending the message; "The only good woman is a dead woman". In other words, it glorifies the mindset of male serial killers who murder women.
Luigi Novi: Again, how do you figure this, given that most of the victims in such films are male characters. We keep asking you this, and you bob and weave around this, refusing to directly answer this question, choosing instead to complain about being “attacked.” Why won’t you just answer the question? Are you deliberately attempting to be trollish? If not, why won’t you directly address the responses we’re making to your posts? Exactly what reaction to your posts would you have instead preferred from us?

Rona F.: There is a link between sex and violence in those murders as most serial killers prey on prostitutes.
Luigi Novi: First of all, this is untrue, and I say this as someone who has read several of John Douglas’ books, such as The Anatomy of Motive, Obsession, The Cases That Haunt Us, and Journey into Darkness. Douglas, of course, is the preeminent former FBI profiler on whom Thomas Harris based the character of Jack Crawford in Hannibal and The Silence of the Lambs. I’ve also read others books on the subject from Patricia Cornwell and Roy Hazelwood. Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t target prostitutes. Neither did John Wayne Gacy. Or Ted Bundy. Or Wayne Williams. Or the Zodiac Killer. You seem to be under the impression that all serial killers are like Jack the Ripper.

You are again not citing any evidence for this assertion, appearing instead to simply make it up out of thin air. Again, if I’m wrong, and you think I’m unfairly attacking you, then please cite evidence that serial killers prey on prostitutes.

Rona F.: To be more clear on the matter, I'm not saying that all men who watch slasher films will become murders. I'm only asking why films (with no socially redeeming value) that appeal to the most base elements in maknkind should be made.
Luigi Novi: Because others don’t agree with you that they lack such value. Many like such films for other reasons that have nothing to do with the motives you describe, as many have mentioned here.

Rona F.: On a more disturbing personal level, several posters have attacked my comments on plastic surgery. I'm sorry, but this is a subject that I've been thinking about a lot recently. There has been quite a bit of anguish in my family lately. My niece, who is in high school, has been harassed (in 2004, Staten Island, New York...of all places!) in school for having a "Jewish nose". Cruel taunts such as "Jew nose" ARE anti-Semitic. My niece has been pleading with her mother to get her a nose operation (She's too young now). When I read comments pretending that anti-Semitism doesn't exist, it infuriates me. I'm not going to go on a rant and say that the males who taunted her are acting like Hitler youth, but there is an undeniable anti-Semitic element to their behavior. To try and pretend that women with non-Aryan features aren't mocked is wrong. The Aryan beauty ideal is worshipped in this country.
Luigi Novi: This does nothing to substantiate your claim that some men are supposedly threatened by plastic surgery for racist reasons (as if we care what white supremacists think), much less that this has anything to do at all with the comments made here about women with breast implants.

Rona F.: I mentioned Italian women because they too have been mocked for having prominent noses.
Luigi Novi: I don’t know of any such treatment experienced by my mother, sister, or any of the other women in my family.

Rona F.: Winston Churchill is famous for a statement he made: "If someone isn't liberal at twenty, they don't have half a heart. If someone isn't conservative at 40, they don't have half a brain."
Luigi Novi: Despite the fact that he never said any such thing. That’s a quote that’s misattributed to him, and may not even be the original quote. The quote is:

"Anybody that's a conservative under age 30 doesn't have a heart. Anybody that's a liberal over age 30 doesn't have a brain."

There are variations. Another is:

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

This wording is a variation of, "The man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart, but if he is still a socialist at forty he has no head”, which belongs to the former French Prime Minister Aristide Briand, who was himself a recovered socialist.

Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t target prostitutes. Neither did John Wayne Gacy. - Luigi Novi

IIRC, neither Dahmer or Gacy targeted women at all. I've read Buried Dreams, a book about Gacy's murder spree. His target was boys. I think Wayne Williams also killed boys exclusively. Both Gacy and Williams at any rate, did not attack adults. Zodiac (a serial killer I must confess holds a certain amount of fascination for me [because of all the mystery surrounding him]) murdered both men and women.

The whole point is to attack a poster's argument, not the poster him/herself.

Below is an actual quote from the first post Rona made on this subject.

To end on a lighter note, there are some horror films which I consider to be acceptable.

That SHE finds acceptable. For her, adn therefore for eveyrone. How is that not totalitarian?

You're putting words into her mouth, Brian. She never said that.

First of all, why all of the mean-spirited focus on ATTACKING my posts.

Well first of all I don't think anything was mean-spirited but why so much attention to arguing with you? Could it be because you came to a board that was set up for people to discuss the movie "Freddy vs Jason" (a horror film) and said that you don't like horror films, think they should be banned, think that the people who make them hate women and think that they cause people to want to mistreat women and become violent? Did you not expect a board that was mostly posted on by horror fans (I'd assume that most people who post on "Freddy vs Jason" would like horror in some form) to react?

I'm sorry, but after watching some slasher films, I was left with only one conclusion: they were made by someone with a hatred for women.

Tobe Hooper. 'Nuff said.

To try and pretend that women with non-Aryan features aren't mocked is wrong.

Mocked by some, but you seem to be implying that me and every other Nit-C who prefers women WIHTOUT plastic enhacnements are the same way as the idiots who tease your niece. Tell you what. I'm going to give you some links to pictures of women I find to be very beautfiul. Yes, all of them are white, but the pics I'm showing were colelcted for a View Askew about "Sexy over 40," and Tyra banks and Garcelle Nilon arne't over 40, so don't even try that one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/HonorSpider/diane-lane.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/HonorSpider/leeza3_g.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/HonorSpider/e34db1e9.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/HonorSpider/kimD019.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/HonorSpider/selaW033.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/HonorSpider/jane37.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/HonorSpider/faithH023.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/HonorSpider/dana012.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/HonorSpider/margblack.jpg [NOTE ON THIS ONE: The file is called margblack because it's a pic of Marg helgernberger from CSI wearing a black outfit.]
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/HonorSpider/MeredithMore2.jpg (Luigi will back me up on this one. Oh, and would it be wrong to point out that she's raising her kids Jewish (converted when she married)? Just hoping to avoid another false accusation).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/HonorSpider/drwdef12.jpg (wait, that's not a picture of a sexy woman! Oh well, it's a cool pic anyway).

To me, the only one who could be honestly described as having "Aryan" features is Leeza Gibbons.

So how the hell are these Neo-Con views, Brian?

Fair enouhg, but flase acusations of Anti-Semitism are a popular NeoCon tactic. Sad, beucase as I've mentioned in some of my Bush tirades, unlike Bush and his Millenail Dispansation friends, the NeocOns and I support Israel for most of the same reasons.

I'm not going to comment on your point about the war in Iraq here, except to say that I've never denied that Saddam was a bad man. A lot of anti-war viewpoints have been distorted and taken out of context, by people like you, and it annoys the hell of out me.

I'm not going any furhter than that if I have to bite off my own fingers to do it.

Stop trying to project your ideas onto anyone who might disagree with you.

Uh, excuse me, but isn't that exaclty what you've been doing on this topic pretty much from minute one?

So, if you want to watch slasher films, that's your business.

While this is a good attitude to take about moive you can't stand (you never saw me trying to ban Titanic or Battlefield Earth or Dude, Where's My car? did you?), it's quite a shift from "isn't it time we ban them."

Nice way to show restraint, Brian—er, I mean Anonymous.

HEY! You and I both know I don't use the word intercourse. ;-)

Actually that really wasn't me. I was too busy writing that post at the F 9/11 board.

Rona Feinberg: To end on a lighter note, there are some horror films which I consider to be acceptable.

Brian Webber: That SHE finds acceptable. For her, adn therefore for eveyrone. How is that not totalitarian?
Luigi Novi: It is not totalitarian because she is merely mentioning films she finds acceptable. Her comment above that they should be banned is certainly evocative of totalitarianism, but this one you’ve quoted here is not.

Brian Webber: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/HonorSpider/MeredithMore2.jpg (Luigi will back me up on this one…
Luigi Novi: She’s okay. No biggie.

Brian Webber: To me, the only one who could be honestly described as having "Aryan" features is Leeza Gibbons.
Luigi Novi: What about Cybill Shepherd, Faith Daniels, and Marg Helgenberger?

Luigi, I'm sorry if I can't respond at length to many of the posts. I'm usually brief because I don't have that much time to spend. I'm usually very busy. If I went overboard expressing my dislike for slasher films, I hope I didn't offend anyone.

Well, I think you may have offended people here when you stated that all fans of the genre were "brutes," but I commend you for apologizing for it.

As for responding at length, yes, I understand, but it should be possible to at least respond to the major arguments and facts mentioned to refute your thesis about slasher flicks.

Nice way to show restraint, Brian—er, I mean Anonymous.

I am not Brian. I dunno if you have mods that can check IP #'s but feel free to. I only post here as Anonymous, as I never bothered thinking up a screen name, and I don't like using my real name online.

Luigi Novi: What about Cybill Shepherd, Faith Daniels, and Marg Helgenberger?

You mean Faith Hill? How so? I especially disagree with you on Marg. She's a natural red head (I forget the name of the movie, but suffice it to say I'm certain on this one) after, and forgive me if I'm wrong, mayeb Rona knows if this is true or not, but don't Aryans generlaly not care for red-head?

It is not totalitarian because she is merely mentioning films she finds acceptable. Her comment above that they should be banned is certainly evocative of totalitarianism, but this one you’ve quoted here is not.

Well, when put together with the rest of her post it certainly appears that way. I suppose I should've just said "look at her post!" instead of tyring to Clif Note it. Yeah, I defiantely should've done that. In fact I should it more often. Save me a lot of time.

Brian Webber: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/HonorSpider/MeredithMore2.jpg (Luigi will back me up on this one…
Luigi Novi: She’s okay. No biggie.

I recall a discussion at Peter David's Blog that suggests differently. Oddly enouhg, this is the seocnd time you've underscored waht seemed (to me at least; I can't remember what the original discussion was which makes it touhg to look up) to be a ringing endorsement, for lack of a better phrase. I remember bringin up MV at the Blog, adn you said somethign like "I agree 100% She is hot *big smiley*", then a few days later, I mention her in I think it was a Kitchen Sink topic. I said "You'll probably be interested to know, MV says she's gonna be in Playboy*." To which you said, "who?"

* Turns out it was just an article tlaking about her planting a smooch on co-host candiate Chrissy lemeire(sp?) last year. *shrugs*

Luigi, you probably don't like my "debating" style (how I frame questions and state things) simply because I don't usually debate. Some people have said they've been debating topics online for years. I haven't. My posts probably represent a more every day speaking style than an experienced debating style. You've probably honed your debating skills to a fine art (I surely haven't!). For example, I wasn't used to people taking my words and picking them apart and even trying to psychoanalyse my words. It kind of pissed me off when that happens (some people just aren't to that; most of the websites I visit are very family-friendly where no controversial topics are discussed and there is a "sweet" tone to all the discussions).

However, in retrospect I did make certain mistakes. I probably assumed most of the posters were familiar with my arguments (had seen the same programs, newspapers, websites, etc.) I had seen. For example, when I stated that some people were viewing the Nick Berg murder as "entertainment" I assumed most of the posters had seen the reports on the news. ABC News had a report that videos of Berg's murders were being sold on the streets of Bagdad right alongside copies of pirated Hollywood films.

As for my comments on plastic surgery, I was genuinely upset by some of the posters responses to my comments. Some posters seem to assume I'M making up "facts" out of thin air. My comments were directly related to a program I saw on the history channel. That program stated that the first "nose job" operations were performed in the 1890s on women in Berlin who were subjected to anti-Semitic attitudes. Given the primitive and dangerous state of surgery back then, someone would have to want to endure great pain to look more "Aryan". I was trying to make a roundabout argument that women today are still going under the knife for some of the same reasons back then.

As for my necrophilia argument, I probably did let some ideas from a movie a saw sink in a bit too deep. The Sundance channel (shows independent movies) ran a film about a young woman who was obsessed with dead bodies and autopsies. Her obsession eventually lead to her having sex with dead bodies. I probably should have said to myself; "That's just a movie, people don't act like that in real life!" But, undeniably, there are some real life sickos who do those things.

(some people just aren't to that; most of the websites I visit are very family-friendly where no controversial topics are discussed and there is a "sweet" tone to all the discussions).

Not trying to start an argument here but where do you find websites like that? This is one of the most civil sites I've seen online considering the controversal subjects that we discus here. Most of the other sites that I see (where the topics may only be half as controversial) usually turn into Beevis and Butthead style personal attacks where we'd all be accusing the others of having gay sex with animals in response to a disagreement (check out talkback on aintitcoolnews.com for an example of this.)

Out of curiosity, is it worse to have gay sex with animals than heterosexual sex?

lol (yes, thats cool speak for ya), I dont know mike, I would probably say that homosexual beastiality is worse that normal good old fashioned american sex.

I meant heterosexual bestiality.

MikeC: Out of curiosity, is it worse to have gay sex with animals than heterosexual sex?

I meant heterosexual bestiality.

Those are the posts of the day Mike.

Apparently horror movies cause people to become interested in bestiality, both gay and non-gay. I say we should ban them for this reason. Or else show them in every zoo. One or the other.

Brian Webber: I recall a discussion at Peter David's Blog that suggests differently. Oddly enouhg, this is the seocnd time you've underscored waht seemed to be a ringing endorsement, for lack of a better phrase. I remember bringin up MV at the Blog, adn you said somethign like "I agree 100% She is hot *big smiley*", then a few days later, I mention her in I think it was a Kitchen Sink topic. I said "You'll probably be interested to know, MV says she's gonna be in Playboy*." To which you said, "who?"
Luigi Novi: Yes, I remember agreeing with you, and I remember later not picking up on your “MV” abbreviation, but I don’t recall to what degree I agreed with you. She’s attractive, but a bit too old for me. Maybe at the time I hadn’t seen enough photos of her, or something.

Rona F.: Luigi, you probably don't like my "debating" style (how I frame questions and state things) simply because I don't usually debate.
Luigi Novi: It really has nothing to do with “liking” or one’s debating “style.” It has to do with addressing the manner in which you form and argue your conclusions, and how you interact with the others here, specifically

-Making bold statements without evidence or reference, or on mere anecdotal evidence (more on that below), or saying things just flat-out untrue, as with your comments about Roger Ebert, or arguing that such films leads to necrophilia.

-Deliberately ignoring certain facts that would serve to disprove your conclusions, while embracing info that seems to support it (In cognitive psychology, this is known as confirmation bias.) An example of this would be the fact that if horror films caused violence, as you argued, then we would expect higher incidences of violence among its fans, and in fact, we do not see such an occurrence. You ignore this fact.

-(As it appeared initially) Stonewalling the specific counterarguments made by others here in refutation of your statements by refusing to answer them. For example, you argued that Dahmer and Gacy were violent, and that Dahmer watched horror films. I asked why you made no mention of Gacy watching such films, as the omission of that point seemed like an indication that he did not, and that you didn’t mention it because it wasn’t consistent with your thesis. I asked you about this, and you never answered it. Another example is how others here asked you how horror films can be hateful towards women if in most of them, it is a female character who ends up surviving, and the males who don’t, and you didn’t respond to that. Another is how Brian Fitzgerald and myself provided information that disproved your statement about Roger Ebert, and you never responded to that either.

-Insulting entire groups of people. (Such as referring to horror fans as “brutes,” when you know many on this board are such fans, or insulting anyone fond of Toby Keith or NASCAR.)

It is because of these forms of behavior that I and perhaps others here initially believed you were just trolling to get a reaction out of us. I might have been mistaken in that regard, and I apologize. But for future reference, I would offer that you read up on logical fallacies, and other ways in which thinking can go wrong. Michael Shermer’s book Why People Believe Weird Things is a great starting point. There is currently one at amazon.com for as low as $8.00. For online reading, there are plenty of sites on logical fallacies, like the ones here, here, here, and here.

RonaF: As for my comments on plastic surgery, I was genuinely upset by some of the posters responses to my comments. Some posters seem to assume I'M making up "facts" out of thin air. My comments were directly related to a program I saw on the history channel. That program stated that the first "nose job" operations were performed in the 1890s on women in Berlin who were subjected to anti-Semitic attitudes. Given the primitive and dangerous state of surgery back then, someone would have to want to endure great pain to look more "Aryan". I was trying to make a roundabout argument that women today are still going under the knife for some of the same reasons back then.
Luigi Novi: And you would be wrong, on the account that choosing to go under the knife to escape the dangers of racism—dangers that can lead to one’s death—are entirely different from women who freely CHOOSE to alter their appearance to conform to a populist version of beauty, especially to gain success in the entertainment industry, which is an entirely different set of motives stemming from an entirely different level of duress. The fact that such surgery is so much safer today is another reason why the two are markedly different.

RonaF: As for my necrophilia argument, I probably did let some ideas from a movie a saw sink in a bit too deep. The Sundance channel (shows independent movies) ran a film about a young woman who was obsessed with dead bodies and autopsies. Her obsession eventually lead to her having sex with dead bodies. I probably should have said to myself; "That's just a movie, people don't act like that in real life!" But, undeniably, there are some real life sickos who do those things.
Luigi Novi: See, this seems to undermine your thesis. Your argument was that such films are hateful towards women. But in the film you provide as reference, 1. The necrophiliac is a woman, and not a man, and 2. no mention is made of watching horror films.

Luigi, I find some of your facts to be questionable. I stated the fact that most serial killers prey on women (whether prostitutes or not). You state that most of their victims are male. Almost every expert I've seen on tv states most of the victims are male. You pick your experts and I can pick mine. Deliberate misrepresentation? My Winston Churchill quote was directly from a newspaper column. That author used an inaccurate misquote. It's really pathetic as if you think I'm out to misrepresent facts. It's also nice that you have so much free time to pick apart other people's quotes. Some people are busy working.

I think the proven result of horror movies is that people make a lot of posts on boards about them.

You state that most of their victims are male. Almost every expert I've seen on tv states most of the victims are male. - Rona F.

Uh, so you agree with Luigi?

Luigi, I find some of your facts to be questionable. I stated the fact that most serial killers prey on women (whether prostitutes or not). - Rona F.

You cited Jeffrey Dahmer as an example. Yet, Dahmer's victims were men.

Rona F: Luigi, I find some of your facts to be questionable. I stated the fact that most serial killers prey on women (whether prostitutes or not).
Luigi Novi: No you did not.

You said that most serial killers prey on prostitutes.

And I provided several examples of famous serial killers whose victims did not include prostitutes.

As for the different question of gender that you have now shifted to, the same answer holds. Dahmer killed only males. So did Andrew Cunanan. So did John Wane Gacy. Ted Kaczynski killed only males (but injured at least one female). David Berkowitz, Andrei Chikatilo, Richard Ramirez, Ottis Toole, and the Zodiac Killer attacked both males and females. Those who were known to attack only females, such as Ted Bundy, the Hillside Stranglers, and Jack the Ripper (though the Ripper may have killed males as well) are certainly noteworthy, but I don’t know if most serial killers target only women. Can you tell me where this has been documented?

RonaF: You state that most of their victims are male. Almost every expert I've seen on tv states most of the victims are male.
Luigi Novi: Assuming this was a misstatement on your part, and you meant to say that the experts say that most of the victims are female, I would ask for reference for this.

RonaF: You pick your experts and I can pick mine.
Luigi Novi: No.

What I and others here did was respond directly to the specific statements you made, using reason, logic, and facts to point out why your statements did not hold up. We pointed out that there is no evidence of a connection between slasher flicks and violence. We pointed out that if there were, there would be higher incidences of violence among its fans, and there is not. I pointed out that you mentioned Dahmer and Gacy, and added that Dahmer watched horror films, but that you made no mention of whether Gacy did, as if this did not fit your thesis. I would add here that according to the reading I’ve read on the subject by John Douglas and Patricia Cornwell, serial killers develop usually from some form of childhood trauma or abuse, and perhaps some genetic components. There is zero evidence that they are the result of watching slasher flicks. If I’m wrong, and there have been peer-reviewed reports or studies that indicate otherwise, please point me to them. Citing experts was one thing I did, but not the only one, and for your part, you didn’t cite any experts, except for vague anecdotes, which may be as inaccurate as your Roger Ebert reference.

The only responses you provided amount to material that is either vague and undefined (as with your talk about “experts on tv”), grossly misquoted or taken out of context (as with your statement Roger Ebert, which Brian Fitzgerald and I called into question with contradictory information) false analogies (as with your comparison of Jews undergoing dangerous nosejobs to escape Anti-Semitism to modern starlets electing to get breast implants, or comparing commercials used to advertise films with the notion that the films themselves are advertisements for murder), or bold statements that you simply made up, as when you claimed to know the mental/emotional state of horror fans by merely watching any slasher film, or when you claimed that horror films lead to necrophilia.

You have chosen to continuously ignore these counterarguments, refusing to respond to them directly, choosing instead to stonewall on the matter. I will ask you again:

-What’s wrong with Toby Keith and NASCAR?

-How does watching any slasher film prove the notion that horror fans are filled with hatred towards women?

-How do you know that all horror fans cheer for the killer to kill the heroine, especially if you don’t watch such films? If you have seen some, how did you determine that every single person in theater cheered this way, and if you’ve only seen a small amount of them, then how can this act as a scientifically viable sample? And if you’ve seen such films, does that mean you will become a violent murderer and necrophiliac?

-Where is the evidence of a link between horror films and violence?

RonaF: Deliberate misrepresentation? My Winston Churchill quote was directly from a newspaper column.
Luigi Novi: I never mentioned your Churchill quote as a deliberate misrepresentation. Try actually reading my response to that passage.

RonaF: It's really pathetic as if you think I'm out to misrepresent facts.
Luigi Novi: I don’t think you necessarily do so intentionally. I think you have a predisposition on this subject, and are falling into the cognitive trap of focusing on things that appear to support your thesis, and ignoring information that does not. This may be why you deliberately refuse to respond to the counterarguments presented by others here that refute your conclusions.

RonaF: It's also nice that you have so much free time to pick apart other people's quotes. Some people are busy working.
Luigi Novi: As am I today. That does not keep me from responding to statements I believe to be false or fallacious.

Luigig ...And if you’ve seen such films, does that mean you will become a violent murderer and necrophiliac?

Aaaaahhhh, watch out for Rona! Run for your life!

RonaF: It's also nice that you have so much free time to pick apart other people's quotes. Some people are busy working.
Luigi Novi: As am I today. That does not keep me from responding to statements I believe to be false or fallacious.

Some people are busy working... you mean we don't have to post on these boards? We won't get paid to do it? I'll stop posting now and work instead!

pssh...I dont know about you, but people pay me to post on these boards. They like my opinion that much......

(however, I still haven't recieved that check i was promised....)

Derrick, do you earn US $ or maybe Mexican pesos?

Does this mean your opinion has to be of good quality for you to earn the money?

I would recommend that Rona should read the works of Barbara Creed, Carol Clover and Vera Dika, three feminist film scholars who took up the question of the slasher film phenomenon of the early eightiest with varying conclusions. The most interesting facet of these films is not the women being murdered but what Clover terms the "Final Girl," the empowered female who outlives all other characters, male and female, and claims audience sympathy while gaining the power to temporarily defeat the killer. Of the classic slasher cycle, this is an almost assured feature.

Is the Final Girl herself a sexist stereotype? Perhaps. But just as you describe audience members shouting "kill the •••••" as women are murdered early in these films, those very same vocal audience members are likely to cheer for the Final Girl as she gets her revenge on the killer. One phrase sticks in my mind, Clover's statement the slasher film rests on the willingness and even eagerness "of the male viewer to throw in his emotional lot, if only temporarily, with not only a woman but a woman in fear and pain . . . would seem to suggest that he has a vicarious stake in that fear and pain."

It is not my place to rehash the theories of these ladies, but I hope the knowledge that dedicated feminists have combed through the slasher phenomenon, not exactly redeeming or praising it but pointing to its complexities, will make you consider that this is far more interesting than the simple dogma you're repeating.

Sorry, a typo: I meant to type in "most of the victims are female". That error sure changes the meaning of my post. I,m not trying to start a feud with anyone. Everyone is free to get information from sources they like. I don't want to feud with anyone. I'll see this film in the upcoming week and then give my honest reactions to it.

But just as you describe audience members shouting "kill the •••••"

I've seen many horror films and have never observed this phenomina. The only time I've heard of it is in a feminist criticism of Fatal Attraction, the author was distrubed by people in the audience yelling stuff like that even though they were cheering for Glen Close's psycho killer character to get killed.

RonaF: Everyone is free to get information from sources they like.
Luigi Novi: You continue to stonewall regarding the specific questions and counterarguments posed to you by bringing up another Straw Man.

Luigi: She’s attractive, but a bit too old for me.

Unless you're a minor I don't think it really matters. Besides, it's not I'm actually INVOLVED with Meredith. I just fanatsize about her three, four, sometimes five times a night.

Rona: Deliberate misrepresentation? My Winston Churchill quote was directly from a newspaper column.

Rona, if I may go back to that Churhcill quote, three points of interest. One, I find the remakr that anyone over 40 who isn't a Conservative doesn't have a brain very offensive, in that you'd be hard pressed to find a Conservative of ANY age, anywhere in my family (currently living). My grandmother for example is appraching 60, and she makes me look like Mort Kondracke, OK? Secondly, and this really has nothing to do with the subject, but I was once close friends (and if I hadn't been so puhsy and needy maybe we could've been more than that but I digress) with Winston's great great grand niece (by marriage, not by blood; she actually descended from Winston's STEP-Mother, Jennie Jerome, who is something of a feminist icon). I just like bringing that up. How cool would it have been for me to marry into the family of one of the greatest men who ever lived? Oh, and three. Ann Coulter also quoted a few newspaper columns in her book I'm A Man Baby! Just kidding (not about her being a man, I've seen that adam's apple and I know I'm not the only one). The actual title was Slander. ;-) Didn't help her out any either.

Well, at least give Rona some credit for saying she will base her reactions on seeing the film. Lately, we've heard too many criticisms of Farenheit 9/11 from people who haven't seen the film or refuse to see it.

Speaking for myself, I'm not a horror film addict (I prefer sci-fi films). I saw this film more out of curiosity (it was a heavily hyped "event" film). The film didn't really have an impact on me. I think it's a forgetable piece of fluff. In defense of the film, though, it is more of an over the top outrageous film than a more gritty realistic slasher film. Jason vs Freddy is definately not a film such as "Seven". The gore in that was shocking because it "seemed" more real. The murder of the wife was unsettling in "Seven". I don't think anyone goes into a Jason film with the same expectations.

I dont know very many conservatives over 40 either. My mother is 65 and very independent. I cant say liberal or conservative becuase it depends on what the subject is. Sexual issues i guess would be liberal because whatever floats your boat and your consenting adults is cool with her. Government I guess you could say conservative in that she doesnt believe in many of the social programs out there, and so on and son. And she is rather common among her friends and my family. One of her friends (now passed on) was a race car driver and had several male "friends" up until she hiot the final lap at age 60. And yet I know several people in their teens who are so anal retentive uptight conservative that you couldnt fit a sheet of paper between their buttocks. So age has nothign to do with outlook on life either political or personal.

How do we get on this from a "Freddy vs. Jason Board" is there no where safe from politcal bickering?? The quote holds no real ground, it was merely and observation made by one person. Just because that person was famous. Just because they did something great and had some good quotes doesn't mean we should take all their quotes to heart. Heck, if people quoted everything I said, we'd end up with alot of really stupid quotes.

Heck, if people quoted everything I said, we'd end up with alot of really stupid quotes. - Derrick Vargo

Must bite tongue... Don't say anything...

It should also be noted that the discussion should have been moved to PM a while back, but the board troubles kept that from happening.

I saw some of this pic on the Starz channel recently. Is this a movie or a cartoon? I couldn't tell.

"R", most people I meet in life are moderates. I find extremists on both the far-right and far-left to be full of it. Look at either one. The Right will tell you to ban stem cell research. The far left will say all animal testing must end (goodbye to all those medications which could developed). On crime, the Right is pro-death penalty ( and criticised for a lack of empathy with offenders). The Left sometimes has such a leniant attitude toward punishing criminals that they has been criticised for a lack of empathy for victims.

I read an interesting column in the paper last week which included violent movies as one of the reasons America is despised around the world, and not just in Muslim fundamentalist societies. No one on the boards has ever mentioned how these kind of films are viewed in other countries. Even England tried to ban(or censor) some of the more offensive "video nasties" in the 1980s. While many liberals have a "anything goes" (or anything is permissable) attitude in the US, do they ever consider how these films are viewed abroad. So much American entertainment is saturated with extreme violence and sex. Just ask the parent of any young child. Sometimes it is a bit tiresome. Hollywood has always been about money, but shouldn't there be more social resposibility in the products it creates and distributes around the world.

Calling it "anything goes" is fateously disengenuous Rona. It's more like the Wiccan ethic of "if it harm none, do what you will," and let's face it, only people who deep down want to be hurt by dumb slasher and aciton flicks will be hurt. However, if like me they have parents who teach them at an early age the difference between fanatsy and reality, they probably won't have a prblem, or at the very least, won't try to blame their problems on the movies.

AS for American entertainment, you have a point, in sofar as look at a moive like Rules of Engagemtn that basiclaly says it was okay for Muslims to be gunned down by the Marines, beucase all of them were throwing rocks at the U.S. embassy. Those are the kind of movies we're exporting. I seriously doubt Mohammed Atta was inspired to hijack a plane because he hated Die Hard.

I'm not up on the Freddy mythos; the only previous film I saw was New Nightmare because of Tracy Middendorf's appearance. But it seemed odd to me that the adults could know about Freddy Krueger and that was OK, but it was dangerous for the kids to know about him. Does that make sense? This film did mention, BTW, that Freddy killed at least two adults (the girl's mother and one guy's father), so he doesn't just kill kids. Also, I wonder why he didn't kill the girl's father while he was in the neighborhood?

The girl with the breasts at the beginning of the film (mentioned earlier on the board) was apparently an illusion. I think Jason was still dead then. So would that count as "violence against women" if she wasn't real?

I DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE HUMAN CHARACTERS! I didn't go to the movie to see them get slaughtered. I went to see Freddy fight Jason, hence the title - D. Stuart

Well, Freddy and Jason are slashers. And slashers have to have victims. It would have been a pretty boring movie with two characters and one endless fight (unless Andre Gregory and Wallace Shawn were doing the fighting).

The black girl criticizing Freddy's sense of fashion was a good touch. Then he uses his "butter knife" to point to Jason standing behind her. Even while they're battling each other, they still take time to kill teens. Hey, that's their common interest.

It took me way too long to catch on to Jason as a pinball, but once I did, it was funny. And the wink was a classic. Although it makes me wonder about the end. My guess is: Freddy is in "hell" but still controlling Jason's dreams. So the final scene is a dream and Freddy is really dead. But he's going to use dreams to trick Jason into bringing him back to corporeal existence. Just a thought.

RonaF: I read an interesting column in the paper last week which included violent movies as one of the reasons America is despised around the world, and not just in Muslim fundamentalist societies. No one on the boards has ever mentioned how these kind of films are viewed in other countries.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, they gobble them up and ask for seconds. Many box-office bombs recoup their costs and end up making profits in the international market because the rest of the world loves everything that comes out of Hollywood, and makes plenty of violent movies of their own.

Brian Webber: AS for American entertainment, you have a point, in sofar as look at a moive like Rules of Engagemtn that basiclaly says it was okay for Muslims to be gunned down by the Marines, beucase all of them were throwing rocks at the U.S. embassy.
Luigi Novi: They were shot because they were firing at the U.S. embassy, not because of “rocks,” and not because they were “Muslim.”

Luigi, I was using shorthadn to describe that awful movie. What it basically said was that all Muslims who portest the U.S. are evil and it's okay to kill them, EVEN A LITTLE GIRL, PROBABLY NO OLDER THAN MY LITTLE BROTHER! I read a very good review of that flick that proved my point, but the book it's in is currently in Aurora with my grandmother. As soon as I get it back, I'll post it here so you'll see what I'm talking about.

Brian Webber: Luigi, I was using shorthadn to describe that awful movie.
Luigi Novi: "Shorthand" does not mean indicating that things were in the movie that were not. This seems to be an excuse that you're using to rationalize having said something baseless, much as you've done with the past by invoking "humor" to explain comments about Catholics.

Brian Webber: What it basically said was that all Muslims who portest the U.S. are evil and it's okay to kill them, EVEN A LITTLE GIRL, PROBABLY NO OLDER THAN MY LITTLE BROTHER!
Luigi Novi: It does not say that. That is simply your interpretation. Given how Sam Jackson's character was raked over the coals in that movie, even though that crowd was armed and firing at him and his men, you could just as easily say it was about exploring how difficult battle situations can be on soldiers who have to make tactical decisions, and how it can come to haunt them after the fact, or that it was saying that soldiers are responsible for their actions in the field. The film did not say anything about "all Muslims" for the simple reason that it didn't depict "all" Muslims. It depicted a small group that attacked a U.S. embassy and tried to murder its occupants and those who arrived to protect them. That's why they were fired upon.

Big news for fans of this films, it's offical, Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell are in talks for Freddy Vs. Jason Vs. Ash. According to the trades, igoiations is almost done.

According to Bloody Disgusting their is a leaked script that takes place around Christmas time. I really want this rumor to be true but Bloody Disgusting is know for talking out their ass and they mention a quote from Robert England's recent interveiw in Scifi Wire that is totally false, so their report is bunk, but I kinda' wish it wasn't.

Imagine. A horror film with the icons of three franchises.

It's enough to give Rona a friggin' aneurysm.

That's a bit of a rude, unkind remark, Luigi. And completely unwarranted.

Especially since Rona said she LIKED The Evil Dead.

It was neither rude nor unkind. It was a joke relating directly to her stated hatred of such films and their fans. She said far worse of them that I what I just said above.

Yes, Luigi, but she directed her anger at films. You directed your caustic remark at her.

She directed her anger at their FANS as well, insulting them in the most vitriolic way possible. Read her posts, Snick.

So that gives you the right to make her the butt of your joke? Isn't that somewhat in violation of Phil's "Good Cheer" clause at Nitcentral? How can it be in "Good Cheer" if it's a potentially insulting comment (and I'd say it is outright insultingly). This is the second time you've made such a comment. (I've seen the one in the Kitchen Sink about Jwb.) Just because you've had a disagreement with someone, just because they've insulted a group you may or not be a part of, doesn't justify hurling insults at them.

Well... I wouldn't define Luigi's remark as a "hurled insult" because I don't feel it was meant to be unkind.

However, that doesn't mean it wasn't... if not rude... at least insensitive to Rona's potential feelings. It's not like she's given any of us reason to believe that she would take such a remark with the humor intended.

And whatever her previous actions, it should never justify questionable action on our parts.

Yes, she did make remarks against horror film fans... and many people here took exception to those remarks, despite the fact that she didn't intend for her remarks to be interpreted in that manner.

Shouldn't we extend the same courtesy to her?

Benn: So that gives you the right to make her the butt of your joke?
Luigi Novi: No, the legitimacy of humor in general gives me that right. Much in the same way we all make slight jokes towards one another at one time or another. Observe:

Blue Berry: Do you just want to pick a fight?
Luigi Novi: Depends. If I say, "yes," are you going to answer with something original, or just repeat that "pistols at forty paces" schtick again?

Luigi Novi: I understood that he said this because he knew from T’Pol that he was a biotoxin smuggler. Maybe it’s just me.
Sparrow47: Actually, I think it is just you. Oh, wait, is that ad hominem? Whoops. *performs Jedi Mind Trick* There was no ad hominem attack...

No one seemed to have been bothered by these exchanges, and I saw no problem with them. A mere reference that someone doesn’t like slasher films, and that a possible impending one with the icons of three famous horror franchises might be troubling to her is not an insult. It’s a joking reference. To each his own.

Benn: Isn't that somewhat in violation of Phil's "Good Cheer" clause at Nitcentral?
Luigi Novi: In my opinion, no. Humor is perfectly in keeping with the concept of good cheer. But if you want to contact the Chief to ask him his opinion, then perhaps you should do so.

Benn: How can it be in "Good Cheer" if it's a potentially insulting comment (and I'd say it is outright insultingly).
Luigi Novi: It was not intended as an insulting comment. It was referential vis a vis her dislike for those movies, but not an insult.

Benn: This is the second time you've made such a comment. (I've seen the one in the Kitchen Sink about Jwb.)
Luigi Novi: I made no insult towards Jwb. I made a joking reference to his tendency to rationalize virtually all Trek nits.

Benn: Just because you've had a disagreement with someone, just because they've insulted a group you may or not be a part of, doesn't justify hurling insults at them.
Luigi Novi: Agreed. Good thing I didn’t do so.

But did these people appreciate your joking references? I can't be certain, but it seemed like your comment about Rona could be offensive to her.

Mikes right Luigi. I'm sure Berry and Sparrow47 were falling out their chairs with laughter, but Rona is, to put it nicely, tightly wound. Judging from how she's reacted to even some of my more incocuous statements (IIRC the nicest thing she called me in that now defunct topic at LM was "anti-American"), I can see why she might take serious ofense at your very funny joke (not that my opinion on the joke relaly matters, but I did like it. Thought you should know. ).

MikeC: But did these people appreciate your joking references?
Luigi Novi: In the case of Berry, he often peppers his posts with obscure references, jokes, and smileys, and did so in that thread in question, so I couldn't see how he could take offense to it. If he did, he gave no indication of it.

As for Sparrow, the question would be whether I appreciated his reference, because in that case it was he who made the joke, one based on the notion that he was making an ad hominem or flamed comment towards me. And I would answer this question by saying yes, I did think it was funny, as the "flaming" nature of the comment wasn't intended literally, but as a joke.

Would Rona find it "offensive"? I don't know. I cannot see how essentially saying that "she doesn't like slasher films, so an upcoming movie combining the icons from three prominent ones will be something she really won't like" is offensive. Then again, I cannot gurantee that she wouldn't have some odd reaction to it, or otherwise pretend to predict her reactions, given how she has responded in the past quite sensitively to reasonable statements with non sequitural overreactions, but why should I walk on eggshells to protect the feelings of someone who has not shown the same concern for others hear, particularly with such an innocuous comment? It was a mild joke that no hint of pejorativeness to it. I think we should all let it pass.

I also question the consistency of these criticisms. I was attacked with an extreme amount of vitriol recently on the Fahrenheit 9/11 board, repeatedly accused by one poster of lying for statments the respondent merely felt were untrue (as if the only explanation for these things could be deliberate deception on my part, and misinformation or mistake could not be), and at one point called a "filthy liar" by this person. This didn't seem to bother anyone. In fact, another person even criticized me for my alleged argumentation style, despite the fact that I refrained from such comment, and did my best to back up my arguments with some modicum of research and fact-checking. Now, all of a sudden, four people are criticizing me for a totally tame comment referencing Rona's dislike of slasher films, one of whom is that very same poster who attacked me?

You'll pardon me if your lack of consistency fails to persuade me. But if you want to email this exchange to the Chief, please do so. I'll abide by his decision.

Uhhhh, Luigi, no one - that I know of anyway - is saying you should be banned or in any way punished for what you said. Personally (and as the person who started all of this) I was merely pointing out that you said something that I felt could be construed as rude and unkind and thus unwarranted. (And yeah, I thought it was.) But I meant it more as a friendly reminder/warning than anything else. I've called Brian Webber on some of the comments he's made, too. But in expressing my opinion, I certainly wasn't looking to make a federal case out of it. Not like you seem to be. ("But if you want to contact the Chief to ask him his opinion, then perhaps you should do so." and "You'll pardon me if your lack of consistency fails to persuade me. But if you want to email this exchange to the Chief, please do so. I'll abide by his decision.") You now seem to be overreacting a bit. All I'm saying is I thought it was a bit rude. And as Mike has pointed out, someone else (Rona) could be very offended by it. I'm just saying that maybe you could think about how others may perceive your posts. Lord knows I've more likely than not have said something whereby I've unintentionally offended somebody here. (I do it quite a bit in real life.) If I should do something similar, I would hope that some of my fellow Nitcentralites would let me know, so I can either explain or apologize.

But anyway, that's my position on the matter. I was not trying to attack you, or lead an attack on you. I just felt the comment wasn't quite in the spirit of good cheer. But it's not cause for banning or deleting the post. I haven't asked for that, nor has anyone else.

I agree with Benn. And your description of what you said: "she doesn't like slasher films, so an upcoming movie combining the icons from three prominent ones will be something she really won't like" is a tad different than what you said: "enough to give Rona a friggin' aneurysm."

I just question the "good cheerness" of the post, especially since the discussion with Rona had died down at this time. It's one thing to lob a salvo in the midst of a heated discussion, it's another to throw one after the discussion is over.

And why should our perceived consistency have anything to do with it? I called Brian on some of his inaccuracies regarding you on the Fahrenheit 9/11 board, and I'm agreeing with Benn here. I don't see anything inconsistent with it.

Benn: Luigi, no one - that I know of anyway - is saying you should be banned or in any way punished for what you said.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say you did.

Benn: But in expressing my opinion, I certainly wasn't looking to make a federal case out of it. Not like you seem to be. ("But if you want to contact the Chief to ask him his opinion, then perhaps you should do so." and "You'll pardon me if your lack of consistency fails to persuade me. But if you want to email this exchange to the Chief, please do so. I'll abide by his decision.") You now seem to be overreacting a bit.
Luigi Novi: I am merely responding to what you said. You thought it was rude. I did not. I didn’t know what else to say beyond that, and since Jake would probably not do anything it about it, I suggested you relate the exchange to Phil if you wanted to, and if he decided to delete the comment, that’d be fine with me. I don’t see how this constitutes either a federal case or an overreaction. Rather, I think you guys are overreacting just a tad in regards to the “aneurysm” comment.

Benn: All I'm saying is I thought it was a bit rude. And as Mike has pointed out, someone else (Rona) could be very offended by it. I'm just saying that maybe you could think about how others may perceive your posts. Lord knows I've more likely than not have said something whereby I've unintentionally offended somebody here.
Luigi Novi: As have I. Obviously, we have to make judgment calls as to what looks rude or not. In my opinion, the comment was innocuous, and even if Rona were to be offended, I would suggest that if she take it up with me, and I will respond to it her concerns accordingly.

MikeC: And your description of what you said: "she doesn't like slasher films, so an upcoming movie combining the icons from three prominent ones will be something she really won't like" is a tad different than what you said: "enough to give Rona a friggin' aneurysm."
Luigi Novi: Hence my use of the qualifier “essentially.” That is pretty much the meaning of that comment, aside from the exact wording, which was chosen for its humor.

MikeC: And why should our perceived consistency have anything to do with it? I called Brian on some of his inaccuracies regarding you on the Fahrenheit 9/11 board, and I'm agreeing with Benn here.
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about inaccuracies. We’re talking about his vitriolic insults towards me, because my comment toward Rona is being perceived as a possible one. Pointing out inaccuracies is one of the things these boards are for, and while some may react to them as questionable parts of an argument, no one would argue that inaccuracies in themselves constitute questionable behavior. Blatant insults, on the other hand, like the ones he hurled at me on that board are strictly outside the bounds of Phil’s rules, but no one who posted subsequent to the “filthy liar” post said anything about it. So now I’m supposed to believe that “you’re a filthy liar” is okay, but “that movie would give Rona an aneurysm” is a no-no? Again, I am not convinced, and I think you should all let it go.

No, it's not okay to call someone a filthy liar. Why are we even talking about that? Benn was not present on the Fahrenheit 9/11 boards and he's the one who first broached the subject here; I was just agreeing with him. For all you and I know, he may have called Brian on that if he had been on that board.

And even if he had been, I still think the situation is slightly different. Brian said his "filthy liar" post in the middle of an argument with you; you had given no sign of being unable to eloquently and capably defend yourself. I, in fact, quickly made a post demonstrating that you were NOT a liar regarding the Bowling for Columbine board, and in fact, Brian was inaccurate (which he has not responded to).

On this board, with no active conversation, you made what I consider to be a cheap joke regarding Rona that was somewhat insensitive. I'm not saying it's inherently a no-no or that it deserves any sort of sanction; I just agree with Benn that comments like that can be perceived as offensive and you might want to watch yourself. I'm willing to let it go, sure, but I think you missed Benn's original point.

I said: Mikes right Luigi. I'm sure Berry and Sparrow47 were falling out their chairs with laughter, but Rona is, to put it nicely, tightly wound. Judging from how she's reacted to even some of my more incocuous statements (IIRC the nicest thing she called me in that now defunct topic at LM was "anti-American"), I can see why she might take serious ofense at your very funny joke (not that my opinion on the joke relaly matters, but I did like it. Thought you should know. ).

Luigi shot back with: Now, all of a sudden, four people are criticizing me for a totally tame comment referencing Rona's dislike of slasher films, one of whom is that very same poster who attacked me?

I'm responding with: Don't you think your response to what I said is a tad harsh?

Blatant insults, on the other hand, like the ones he hurled at me on that board are strictly outside the bounds of Phil’s rules, but no one who posted subsequent to the “filthy liar” post said anything about it. So now I’m supposed to believe that “you’re a filthy liar” is okay, but “that movie would give Rona an aneurysm” is a no-no?

I'm goign to say something that might be construed as rude by you. TAKE SOME GINKO. I HEAR IT HELPS MEMORY! I used the words 'filthy liar' as an exageration to make a point. I said in that very same paragraph that I didn't actually mean it, I just wanted you to understand how I felt. It would've been nice if you'd remembered that before making that last post.

Yeah, he did. Because I have NEVER (pay attention Luigi; this is important) said the post should be deleted, you should be banned or censured in any way. I don't know what your problem is, but you keep wanting to make this a federal case. No one else has indicated that they want to. You seem to have willfully misconstrued our intentions. It is NOT an attack against you. This isn't something that needs to go the Chief and (again, pay attention Luigi) NO ONE has ever said it should. It's not that bad. So why are you being so defensive about it?

One more thing, Luigi: The criticism levelled at you has been rather mild. Yet, you're acting like it's harsher than it is. I don't think anyone feels that way.

(And just for the record, I really haven't read much of the "Fahrenheit 9/11" board. Michael Moore does not interest me in the least, and nothing on the board has caught my eye making it worth investigating. So I've completely ignored the topic.)

MikeC: No, it's not okay to call someone a filthy liar. Why are we even talking about that? Benn was not present on the Fahrenheit 9/11 boards and he's the one who first broached the subject here; I was just agreeing with him. For all you and I know, he may have called Brian on that if he had been on that board.
Luigi Novi: You were present on that board, and did not make any statement criticizing the use of that type of talk. Yes, you reviewed the Bowling board and detailed some points from it, but you did not offer any criticism for using that type of pejorative language.

MikeC: And even if he had been, I still think the situation is slightly different. Brian said his "filthy liar" post in the middle of an argument with you; you had given no sign of being unable to eloquently and capably defend yourself.
Luigi Novi: But Rona has?

Brian Webber: I'm responding with: Don't you think your response to what I said is a tad harsh?
Luigi Novi: Not really. I think it’s fairly reasonable.

Brian Webber: I'm goign to say something that might be construed as rude by you. TAKE SOME GINKO. I HEAR IT HELPS MEMORY!
Luigi Novi: Given your own refusal to double-check the content of previous boards before referring to them, resulting in totally fabricated quotes and other statements by you, I don’t find this to be a particularly credible suggestion on your part, to say nothing how you are again using pejorative language.

Brian Webber: I used the words 'filthy liar' as an exageration to make a point. I said in that very same paragraph that I didn't actually mean it, I just wanted you to understand how I felt. It would've been nice if you'd remembered that before making that last post.
Luigi Novi: I am unconvinced by your rationalizations, Brian. There was nothing in that statement that indicated “exaggeration,” any more than in the numerous previous instances in which you responded to my assertions by calling them “lies,” and I find this post hoc excuse no more convincing than when you blame it on humor, staying up all night, not having SpellCheck, or what have you. If you decide after making an insult that you “don’t really mean it,” then you go back on delete it. You don’t add an addendum to that effect, simply because you want to eat your cake and have it too. I also don’t buy the idea that you can rationalize calling someone a “filthy liar,” and then claim that my reference to Rona’s dislike of slasher movies was somehow more pejorative.

Benn: Yeah, he did. Because I have NEVER (pay attention Luigi; this is important) said the post should be deleted, you should be banned or censured in any way.
Luigi Novi: I never said you did. I said this above.

Benn: I don't know what your problem is, but you keep wanting to make this a federal case.
Luigi Novi: I keep responding to your arguments by disagreeing with them. Nothing more.

Benn: It's not that bad. So why are you being so defensive about it?
Luigi Novi: Pretty much my position with regards to your reaction to my comment about Rona.

It was a mild joke that no hint of pejorativeness to it. I think we should all let it pass. - Luigi Novi

As (I think) Benn has already pointed out, it's you that seems to have blown this into a bigger deal than it needs to be. From what I can see, the first two posts (by Benn and MikeC) merely expressed their opinion of your post... how they interpreted it. If they interpreted it that way, then others (including the target of your joke) may find it equally offensive. And then you retorted with a denial and used "she did far worse" as a defense when a "Oh, I didn't mean it that way" would have sufficed.

Obviously, there's a difference in interpretation of Phil's "good cheer" rule. In Phil's example of how the "good cheer" can be applied towards another poster, he provides an example in which a person pokes fun of another poster's grammatical error... but your post here pokes fun of another poster.

While, as I said before, I don't believe you intended to injure Rona with your remark, all everyone is really asking is that you look beyond your intentions to other people's potential reactions. I would never define a negative reaction to this joke as "odd." In fact, it's understandable... especially in a text-based medium.

As for your assertions of inconsistency, keep in mind that you are a strong, positive, vocal prescence in Nitcentral... I doubt anyone here (particularly the people who here who are reacting to your joke) feels that you are incapable of defending yourself against accusations that you are a "filthy liar" and such. And any one of them would jump in to assist you when they saw you might be in need of help. But we mostly don't think you need help.

I don't think Rona (aside from this board) is hardly as strong a presence in Nitcentral (or if she is, she uses an alias). I don't know how long she's lurked. And this is an opportunity for regulars like Benn, MikeC, myself, etc. to let her know that while we may have disagreed with her (even strongly so), she's still welcome.

Additionally, as a strong, positive presence in the community, it's up to you to set the example... you help set the standard. It shouldn't be difficult for you to see how your remark, no matter how innocuous the intent, could be misconstrued and lead to a conclusion that Rona is a subject of ridicule... and it degenerates from there.

All everyone is asking is to be sensitive to how other people might interpret your words.

Thank you, Darth! That's it exactly.

Let me point out that you've had, so far, Luigi, what seems to me to be an antagonistic relationship with Rona. The same is true with Jwb. That's not true of your relationship with Sparrow47. With Blue Berry it's been a little of each. (With me, it's been very antagonistic, which is why I refuse to ever respond to or read a post by him again.) But your antagonistic relationship with Rona F and Jwb can, you should realize, color how your post is perceived.

Well, I apologize for not decrying Brian's pejorative language. I was unaware that I had a responsibility to decry all pejorative languages. Here it is: Brian was wrong for calling you a filthy liar because you are not.

Anyway, my posts regarding your comment were as such:

"Especially since Rona said she liked the Evil Dead"

and "I can't be certain, but it seemed like your comment about Rona could be offensive TO HER" (emphasis mine)

At no point in time did I say you used shockingly pejorative language that is just plain wrong and a no-no. I said you were inaccurate in that Rona would probably have no problem with Ash and also that your post could be perceived as offensive by Rona (not that it was offensive).

I agree with Darth and Benn.

Darth Sarcasm: As for your assertions of inconsistency, keep in mind that you are a strong, positive, vocal prescence in Nitcentral... I doubt anyone here (particularly the people who here who are reacting to your joke) feels that you are incapable of defending yourself against accusations that you are a "filthy liar" and such. And any one of them would jump in to assist you when they saw you might be in need of help. But we mostly don't think you need help.
Luigi Novi: But Rona does?

I don’t know how define one’s presence as “strong,” but she seems more than able to stand up to others, regardless of whether she’s right or wrong. Since when do we tell others “Say, there, that’s against the rules” only when we perceive the target to be unable to defend themselves?

Benn: Let me point out that you've had, so far, Luigi, what seems to me to be an antagonistic relationship with Rona. The same is true with Jwb. That's not true of your relationship with Sparrow47. With Blue Berry it's been a little of each.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps you and I see these exchanges differently, Benn, because my exchanges with Rona have never degenerated into the bile-filled flamewars that I ever got into with Jwb. I confined my responses to her statements to analyses of their merit, and did not insult or flame her, nor did she do so with me.

MikeC: Well, I apologize for not decrying Brian's pejorative language. I was unaware that I had a responsibility to decry all pejorative languages.
Luigi Novi: And I’m sorry that you saw my response to this as unreasonable, Mike; It’s just that I respect consistency, and when I see inconsistency, I tend to be more skeptical of the person’s stated position. I’m sorry if this came off wrong to you, but I’ve always seen this as reasonable.

MikeC: At no point in time did I say you used shockingly pejorative language that is just plain wrong and a no-no. I said you were inaccurate in that Rona would probably have no problem with Ash and also that your post could be perceived as offensive by Rona (not that it was offensive).
Luigi Novi: Point taken. Sorry for missing that.

This is funny.

Stop bickering, There really is no case, and no reason to get emotional over. Luigi may or may not have said something offensive, and until rona comes in with her feelings on this we really cant tell if she was in fact offended. Lets drop it, shall we?

I am unconvinced by your rationalizations, Brian.

That doesn't make it any less true Luigi.

There was nothing in that statement that indicated “exaggeration,” any more than in the numerous previous instances in which you responded to my assertions by calling them “lies,” and I find this post hoc excuse no more convincing than when you blame it on humor, staying up all night, not having SpellCheck, or what have you.

I've never been one of the better nitpickers around, I tend to miss some pretty obvious ones. But even I can see what you say here is bitter angry vengeful ••••. The mere fact that I included my explanation of the exageration IN THE SAME ••••••• PARAGRAPH, as the exageration itself is a big dead ••••••• giveaway! It's as obvious as a circus clown in a men's room! And show me a poster who hasn't said something stupid as a result of sleep deprivation, and I'll show you a No-Doze addict.

If you decide after making an insult that you “don’t really mean it,” then you go back on delete it.

Except that wasn't I did. It's what you just assume I did. And it's a false asusmtpion at that. I knew exactly what I was doing with the filthy liar line. The short form would've gone like this. "LIAR! There, see how it feels? Sucks don't it?" but no, like an ••••••• I actually tried to explain myself THOURHGOULY(sp?) What a bastard I am! *sarcasm*

You don’t add an addendum to that effect, simply because you want to eat your cake and have it too.

This is true, and had I made the "exageraiton" comment in a LATER post yopu'd be 100% correct about the above addendum comment. But as a Nitpicker I'd be remiss if I didn't point out, again, that it wasn't an addendum, it was a part of the post. I didn't just go back and ad it. Hard as it may be for you to beleive, having decided that I'm already a demonic little •••• with no reagrd for people's feelings, I knew exactly what I was doing. The only "going back" I did with any of that post was to corect the more obvious spelling errors.

I also don’t buy the idea that you can rationalize calling someone a “filthy liar,” and then claim that my reference to Rona’s dislike of slasher movies was somehow more pejorative.

1: It looked to me like you were lying. 2: I said you weren't a filthy liar, but you were being dishonest. 3: I never said that what you said about Rona here was worse. I never even hinted at it. Stop doing what you accuse me of doing; putting words in other people's mouths.

And then you retorted with a denial and used "she did far worse" as a defense when a "Oh, I didn't mean it that way" would have sufficed.

The irony here Darth is that Luigi, on the F 9/11 board often accused me of engaging in the same logical fallacy.

Point taken, Luigi. Let's move on.

The issues about the F 9/11 board "filthy liar" stuff should really go back to that board.

Stop bickering, There really is no case, and no reason to get emotional over. Luigi may or may not have said something offensive, and until rona comes in with her feelings on this we really cant tell if she was in fact offended. Lets drop it, shall we? - Derrick Vargo

Firstly, it's not really bickering... it's a discussion. We're all just trying to reach an understanding. Granted, this isn't necessarily the place for a discussion on Nitcentral's rules and such, but it's the place where the discussion originated... it happens.

Secondly, whether or not Rona was or is offended isn't really relevant anymore, since what we're talking about is establishing (or re-establishing) a code of conduct that allows everyone the right express himself, but without injuring others.


I don’t know how define one’s presence as “strong,” but she seems more than able to stand up to others, regardless of whether she’s right or wrong. - Luigi Novi

By strong, I mean that you are active all over Nitcentral... not just this board. On top of that, you are more skilled in debating than most people. More often than not (this instance notwithstanding) you are able to separate your emotions and can articulate your thoughts in a... if not always a consise manner ... then a well-structured one.

My only experience with Rona has been on this board... and I am going on the assumption that most of her Nitcentral experience (at least as an active poster) has been in this board. Most of the "debate" with her was antagonistic, and sometimes outright hostile. Our disagreement with Rona bordered on the personal, as many of us were offended by her assertions about horror fans.

And now that things have settled down, you post something that pokes fun at her. If I were a new poster and didn't know better, I might think, "Gee... it doesn't pay to express your opinion about anything around here" and disappear. All anyone's saying is that you (as well as the rest of us) be more sensitive to that perspective.


Since when do we tell others “Say, there, that’s against the rules” only when we perceive the target to be unable to defend themselves? - Luigi Novi

I didn't say that it was necessarily right... I only offered it as a likely reason why people don't jump to your defense each and every time someone makes a ridiculous claim against you.

I mean, can you honestly say that you've jumped to someone's defense each and every time someone has made a false or exagerrated claim against another poster? I could probably cite discussions from the past where people referred to me as a troll (or engaging in trollish behavior) in which you didn't jump in to clarify.

Yeah, and there's been several discussions where Luigi hasn't come to my defense either. I'm not complaining about it.

RICHARD CORLISS,TIME:
"For two decades, horror movies have been R-rated snuff cartoons with severed limbs and buckets of blood. The Freddy and Jason films and the Chainsaw Massacres appeal to the connoisseurs of special-effects gore. Every item is laid out for you to see, like carcasses in a butcher's window."

All right, Michael Moore... let's look at this step-bystep, shall we...

For two decades, horror movies have been R-rated snuff cartoons with severed limbs and buckets of blood.

Firstly, I think the term snuff cartoon is oxymoronic. "Snuff films" are defined as a commercially sold films which depict a person actually dying on-camera. A cartoon isn't real, hence can never depict an actual death.

Secondly, the deaths in horror films are no more real than those in a cartoon... they're staged... they're actors.

In fact, there is no such thing as a snuff film... even the oft-cited "Faces of Death" series are bogus (some of the corpses might be real, but the "deaths" are staged).

The Freddy and Jason films and the Chainsaw Massacres appeal to the connoisseurs of special-effects gore.

In other words... they appeal to people who recognize that the events are fictitious and staged. This particular group is impressed and excited by the technical aspects of the production rather than by the violence depicted. So this is wrong, why?

Every item is laid out for you to see, like carcasses in a butcher's window.

As was the brutality and gore in The Passion of the Christ, which Corliss praises.

Before anyone leaps to the conclusion that Corliss is being contradictory, let's examine some information Michael Moore... err... The Word doesn't tell you...

The article in question isn't about the condemnation of the slasher film, as The Word seems to suggest by his/her selective quotation. The article is about the author's belief that horror films have matured in the last decade... trading the cheap and in-your-face thrills of the slasher flick for a more sophisticated and certainly subtler approach. He calls them "dread movies"... The Ring, The Sixth Sense, and the like.

He by no means takes a position on the slasher film, except to say that they're immature (and perhaps not his cup of tea). In fact, he says "Gross-out films are essentially facetious."

Which is a far cry from the accusations made by Rona and the suggestion "The Word"'s selective quoting tries to make.

This movie is cool! I need to see it again!

Please also, see my post for the 2009 remake of Friday the 13th.

And then maybe, when the time comes, there will be a post for the remake of Nightmare On Elm Street.

They wanted to make a sequel which added Ash Williams (Bruce Campbell) to the mix.

Wile that movie never happened, a comic version was released:


https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/Freddy-Vs-Jason-Vs-Ash