User talk:Yaksar/Horror Icons/Archive 1

Character Order[edit]

The previous version of this template is not correct, as some changes need to be made to make it encyclopedic. A directory template in this form uses a general alphabetical listing – unless you’re talking about a chronological set of releases or events (book/film/comic listing a sequel/prequel order is the norm). By an unrelated character listing, it is inappropriate for them to be listed in an “introduction order”. The casual reader doesn’t know, nor care about the character introduction order, as this is the job of the main character page to inform them. These characters are not part of the same book or film series – they’re separate entities (though just in the same genre). Also, I’ve changed the name to “Modern Horror Icons in Film”, as its not specific to which media it is addressing (book, film, comic, what?). This list would be very distracting if every horror icon from every media/genre was included.Ucantnot 02:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm ok with the order being change in order, but the break in line was there because it's a little much when they list grows (and it will). The plan (and you can see my talk page for it) is to get all horror icons, and then separate them via which era they were in. Example being, Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, The Wolf Man, etc... they are in one group. Leatherface through Freddy is another group.... Ghostface through Jigsaw is another group. There needs to be order to it. Bignole 03:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I listed "Modern" in the title as I didn't know if the "Classic" icons would be included. I'll begin to list the classic icons.Ucantnot 03:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking that all are connected, just some are connected a little closer to others and it wouldn't be fair to only list the modern ones. Bignole 03:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Norman Bates is considered "Modern" by film studies - even though it was in the late 60's. Psycho is considered the beginning of the current horror trend.Ucantnot 03:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that wouldnt' m ake sense year wise, because some of the "classics" were still in existence up to the late 50's early 60's. "The Creature" had a film in 57'. But, yeah...I think Norman would kind of be out in left field, because he isn't a true classic, yet he was 10 years+ before most of the modern ones. I think we need to find some better title names, cause "Jigsaw" and "Ghostface" aren't in the same league as "Freddy" and "Jason". "Ghostfact" kind of started a new era of Horror, a current "modern" era, which would put the term "modern" into question for "Freddy" and "Jason". Bignole 03:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I know what you mean - I'm going off current taught film studies though. Pyscho is considered "modern" because this was the film that broke the previous trend of "universal horror" and campy horror. Norman wasn't a "monster" of the supernatural and began a theme of suspense and an attack on psychology. Because these new movie villians like Jigsaw, Ghostface, etc, have just been introduced recently - they haven't broken the horror mold of the 70's-90's. They're continuing the trend, so they're still considered "modern" - just like Freddy, Jason, etc.Ucantnot 03:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could maybe see Ghostface as the last of the breed, but definitely not Jigsaw. You got to remember, Jigsaw's a killer that never really kills. He puts people in situations and makes them fight for their lives, which is distinct because he's not stalking them and stabbing them with a big knife. He's in the shadows. The only physical manipulation he does is kidnap them, after that it's all them. I think he's definitely in a new age of horror. AHHH!!...that's it. How about "Classic" -- "Modern" -- "New Age" ?? Bignole 04:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we move Modern to incorporate characters introduced passed the year 2000 and put Freddy, Jason, etc, under the Slasher heading?Ucantnot 04:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about a "slasher" title, but I think the "modern" title is probably one that's going to have to "adjust" as time goes on, since time doesn't stand still. We just need to figure out a proper middle ground, because you can't push Dracula past "Classic", it's a term that's always defined those characters. I think maybe the "slasher" could work if we inserted "Era" into each of the titles. But, we'll have to be careful cause not every icon from the 80's and 90's was a "slasher", though most were (that's why "slasher" makes me think we're being really specific. Bignole 04:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about if we break it down into actual years. Like 40's-60's, 90's - 00's??? Something along those lines..that way we can't be accused of using "fanish" terminology, or mislabeling an "era". Bignole 04:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template sucks now. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 19:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda harsh there Mikedk9109, care to be a little more specific to what you don't like. I had to change the "black/red" to be able to incorporate multiple sections. I still made the text red. If there are people that you think don't deserve to be on the list I think we could maybe cast some votes and see who's probably not as iconic as the others. Let us know what's going on there. Bignole 21:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Box[edit]

I've noticed that if you insert the template over top of another template on the same page, that the Horror Icon template will create a "super box" around all other templates. Let's try and remember to place the "horror icon" box below the others, especially since those tables usually have more precedence than the character being an icon. Bignole 03:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried the break in-between the characters and it makes the box look very sloppy on the main character pages. As long as the icon box is placed below any "series" box, why would a "super" box be a problem?Ucantnot 03:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rejects[edit]

I was at first hesistant to add the three main Rejects under the template. However, seeing as characters like Leprechaun and other characters who are much less 'icons' than the Rejects were added, I included them. While the Rejects are fairly new, they have become very popular in the horror community.--CyberGhostface 19:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think Leprechaun is less iconic than Captain Spalding? Granted his series of films has declined worse than others, he was still extremely popular in the 90s. Bignole 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this template is anywhere near "Icons" anymore. People are just adding every horror villain they can think of. But this is a free encyclopedia, so I guess everyone has a say. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 21:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icon or Icant[edit]

There seems to be a little difference of opinion about what should be included as "iconic horror figures". So, I feel the best possible solution is to take some votes about the situation. It seems only fair. In your vote just give a brief description of why they should or shouldn't be included. I'm not going to list them, it's much easier if you just bring what you don't like, or do like, to the table and we go from there.

Just remember this is what we are going for: "a person or thing that is the best example of a certain profession or some doing. That man is an icon in the business; he personifies loyalty and good business sense". "

Oh, and let's make sure we're all civil here. If you don't agree with someone's choice, that's cool, just explain why and move on. Everyone has an opinion, but they also have feelings. Bignole 21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE BELOW

Voting[edit]

The Rejects I think they serve no purpose in this template.
Any villain in this template that has only appeared in one film How can they be iconic? This includes Count Orlok, Candyman
Norman Bates I just think he should not be included, since most people know him by the book.
The Invisible Man Should go.
All the rest Are fine

--Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count Orlock (rebuttle) - was the first vampire on film, thus that's automatic status as iconic. He started the revolution of Vampires, because Mrs. Stoker wouldn't allow Murnau the rights to Dracula. The creeping shadow across the wall is legendary.
Norman Bates (rebuttle)- as apparently it is taught in school, was the beginning of the new era in horror.
Invisible Man (agree) - at least to me he wasn't that iconic. He's hardly remembered in the realm of Dracula and the Wolf Man.
Devil's Rejects (ambig) - To me nothing really screams "icon" from those three, at least not on an individual basis. I think the "family" might be more appropriate. I don't know
Candyman - You can't discredit him on the number of films, cause he's had 3. I don't know how "iconic" he is, but he's definitely recognizable in popular culture.
Leprechaun - I think about it now, he isn't that "iconic". He's popular, but not in the way Freddy and Jason are.
- Note: Maybe we should be thinking about some requirements for this template. Something that can make so we don't have to go through this all the time with "new recruits". I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to google a bit and see the popularity of the characters. I mean, Freddy and Jason have appeared in numerous mediums, which is why they've always been considered iconic.

--Bignole 22:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think "the family" should go as they are not icons - they're popular, but not icons. Icon status means: "One who is the object of great attention and devotion". Freddy has tranformed popular culture - everyone knows who Freddy is, that makes him an icon. The same with Jason, Leatherface, Norman, etc. Though I enjoy Candyman & Leprechaun, I don't think they deserve to be on the list as only horror fans know them - they do not meet the definition. I think a rule should be to include only those who can be recognized outside the genre. As in, nonfans of horror know who they are...

Also, the Classics list is fine as these were the icons of the 40s-early 60s. You may not have been alive during the time to appreciate them, but that doesn't make them any less of an icon. I'm also returning "Bride" back to the list as she is also an icon.

---24.116.60.98 04:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)----[reply]

Please don't return or delete anything till everyone's voice an opinion. The Bride was hardly an icon of american horror classics. The fact that she's a classic character doesn't make her iconic. Bignole 04:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it does, because everyone in modern culture knows of her and her story. Bride is also a film taught in film studies as this was a turning point of horror during that time. Due to Frankenstein's popularity, Bride (by association) transcended to the icon status. If I recall, she was only in the actual film less than 8 minutes - but, the story themes and character are known to many generations.

Also, this may help as this is a list of iconic films that are discussed in my film class:

Nosferatu & Dracula, Frankenstein, Bride of..., Phantom of the Opera, Psycho, Halloween, Silence of the Lambs, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and Scream. There is also large portion devoted to "franchise" film, which included the old Universal Monsters. Ucantnot 04:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add, I really think the (current) list is perfect - as, I can't think of any other character (in horror) that contributed to the genre and meet the definition:

Just my thoughts...

Also, Bignole you're going to slap my hands because I was busy re-editing the template before I read your response... sorry. Ucantnot 04:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being popular doesn't mean iconic. There are a lot of films taught in film classes, if you were shown "the Bride" then that's your professor's personal choice. There isn't some standard curriculum nationwide for film classes. There are few "monsters" that have had limited screen time and still achieved icon status. Count Orlock being one of the only ones that come to mind, because he was the start of all of it. You can't be iconic by association. You should kind of make some sort of contribution to cinema to get that. I mean, she wasn't even really a secondary character. As you said she had less than 10 minutes of screen time, and it's merely how she looked that makes her memoriable in the eyes. I think we should make the list of icons, a list of icons that are the most well known. Oh, and I'm not going to "slap your hands", I noticed knew that when I read "i'm going to put it back" that you were doing that while I was typing "please don't change anything till we make a decision". Oh well, I'm not going to get into and edit war over it, but let's leave it how it is now till after others have voice an opinion on the subject matter. Bignole 05:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it should look closer to this:

The maybe's are ones that could go either way in my opinion, the ones I removed are ones that are popular but really aren't notable to the genre in any way. Jigsaw (the most recent) I believe to be an icon because he's the beginning of a new era of horror, just like Norman Bates was in the 60s, and Count Orlock was in 1922. Bignole 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this should be based on who kills people. Does the Bride really kill people? Is she really iconic. She got under 10 mintues of screen time? She shouldn't even be considered. She doesn't even have her own page on Wiki, and she would if she was very well knownm which shes not. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being iconic has nothing to do with killing people. Pinhead really doesn't kill anyone, he takes them back to his labrynth (sp) and tortures them forever. Jigsaw makes people kill themselves. But, either way, as I said, we need to wait (5 days from the start of the vote...that's kind of standard on most voting procedures) and let everyone make a choice before we go removing people. I mean, she probably won't stay on the list anyway, but let's respect other people's opinions. Bignole 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'll stop removing it. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before we continue, I think we should come up with a set criteria for what makes a horror icon - as I think we'll be debating in circles. Also, a set "rules" list will help when others want to "just add" there fav monster...

In my opinion, a horror icon is a character that everyone can recognize no matter the generation. This means kids, adults, and the elderly - which also includes the audience that doesn't know anything about the horror genre. In effect, if you show their picture to someone on the street and they know them - doesn't this constitute icon status? Ucantnot 05:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not EVERYONE can recognize anyone. I know plenty of people I can show a picture of Freddy to and they wouldn't know who he was. Some people just don't really care, but I understand what you are talking about. Popularity isn't just the only thing. But we'll work on a "guideline" after we establish who stays and who goes. Then we'll do a guideline that everyone can agree upon. Bignole 12:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think we should make a set of guidelines/rules. That sounds like a good idea. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 19:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict from Vote

--Mikedk9109 (Sup) (stalk me) 23:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Given (those that were obviously going to stay):

Leatherface, Freddy, Jason, Michael, Pinhead, Norman Bates, Dracula, The Wolf Man, and Frankenstein.

Didn't make the cut (consensus):

Leprechaun (gone), The Tall Man (gone), Candyman (gone), The Invisible Man (gone), Devil's Rejects (gone), The Phantom

Made the cut:

Hannibal, Count Orlok, Chucky, Jigsaw

Still questionable status:>br>

The Mummy, Creature, Ghostface,

That is what I took away from the voting. Bignole

This list does look cleaner.Ucantnot 01:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. -- Mikedk9109 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

INVISIBLE MAN & THE PHANTOM ARE ICONIC

History tells us so

They've reached our thoughts, influenced our films, novels, and reached us through more entertainment mediums than imaginable

Respect as Icons[edit]

First the rule is that a monster must be in more than 1 movie, yet Count Orlok remains. Next Jigsaw remains (who is popular but not iconic at all. He's in a bunch of 'Saw' films, and people have known him for less than 5 years yet HE IS MORE ICONIC than The Phantom or the Invisible Man? (Who are still impact today's novels, plays, & movies, AND are the archetypical invisible or horribly disfigured horror villains from which many of today's horror icons were influenced by). H.G. Wells "The Invisible Man" as well as its film adaptations as well as Leroux's "The Phantom of the Opera," its plays and movies remain one of cornerstones of the horror genre, still spawning new influences to this day after countless years because of the intrigue and lasting appeal of such characters beyond the HACK & SLASH brutality of today's films. Critics, AFI, AMC, and serious horror film afficianados agree the Phantom and the Invisible Man are ICONS.

I personally admire some of the monsters on the list more than The Invisible Man or the Phantom. I'm not being subjective here like most people are. There is proof that the Invisible Man and the Phantom are undoubtedly HUGE INFLUENCES, POPULAR, EACH STAR IN NUMEROUS FILMS, and STILL REMAIN IN OUR SOCIETY'S VOCABULARY, CONCEPTS, AND BELIEFS TO THIS DAY. Go check out the nearest Phantom of the Opera play near you or take the numerous books on or about it and its character today. You won't find any archives on Jigsaw, The Creature, like the ones you'll find on Phantom and Invisible.

Horror Icons[edit]

PHANTOM IS ICONIC The Phantom (from "The Phantom of the Opera") has appeared in numerous film adaptations spanning from the 1925 film to the 1962 Hammer Films interpretation and the 2004 adaptation. The Phantom is one of the pioneers in the concept of a disfigured man hiding behind a mask and expressing his feelings through some type of instrument (in his case, the pipe organ). He is loosely the archetypical Jason Voorhees. Both are hideously disfigured characters who hide behind masks and vent their feelings through some type of object (in the Phantom's case, a pipe organ. In Jason's case, a machete)-both of which strike terror into unsuspecting victims. We're not talking Leprechaun or Pumpkin head here. "The Phantom of the Opera," has inspired many facets of entertainment - from musicals, to movies, to books (original novels, RL Stein's "Phantom of the Auditorium") and more. People to this day still attend the play based on the Phantom.

INVISIBLE MAN Also appeared in numerous films and novels. He's is one of the archetypes to all characters who are or can become invisible in this day and age. Just as the story of Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde inspired Marvel Comics to create The Incredible Hulk, the Invisible Man helped inspire the creation of movie spin-offs, such as "Hollow Man," to the original film adaptation of H.G. Well's "The Invisible Man" -- Most touching upon the theme of man's illegimate gain of power leading to his corruption.

AFTERWORD: There is absolutely no way that Jigsaw is iconic whereas the Invisible Man and The Phantom are not. As for spin-offs and sequels of a horror character's films not warranting iconic status, I agree (because they're just ways for Hollywood to rake in money on a franchise's popularity. As is the case with the "Saw" series (the trilogy is already completed). However, a horror icon such as The Phantom and The Invisible Man were more than popular. They're the pioneers, the precursors to Modern Horror Icons. They continue to inspire us through books, comics (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen), television, and films with various incarnations of an Invisible Man or a reclusive Phantom. The themes they bring out in their stories still play an important role in today's society as evidenced by the perpetuance of their memory while other horror figures (ala Pumpkin Head) are forgotten more easily. THAT'S HOW THE MEME WORKS, I guess; Today's icon can be tomorrow's forgotten memory-(but nobody has forgotten the Phantom or the Invisible Man). We had a vote - Phantom and Invisible Man are ICONIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FF7SquallStrife7 (talk • contribs)

Bignole, there seems to have been some type of miscommunication, you were referring to the wrong editor here: QUOTE: "As, I said, GO TO THE TALK PAGE. You said "we had a vote and they are horror icons"...who is this "we" you speak of because I know that wasn't the "we" that voted on the template when it was created. Now, you may have voted afterward, but you sent me the message first, so I don't know what you are referring to when you talk like that. Bignole 13:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I just went to the talk page, and you were there. You claim "we voted" but your name and your reasons are not there. Your edit summary claims "no one reads the talk page", obviously because you never did. BRING IT TO THE TALK PAGE, there was a vote there, if you want to dispute something GO THERE. This isn't some dispute between you and me, I am merely keeping the template the way it was voted upon, nothing more. Again, GO TO THE TALK PAGE AND DISCUSS IT THERE. Bignole 13:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FF7SquallStrife7."

I gave you my legitamate reason why The Phantom and The Invisible man belong on the list of icons. Please stop reverting my edits - unless you receive at least 1/4 % of total Wikepedia user votes concurring that The Phantom and Invisible Man don't belong on the Horror Icons Template.

I'm not trying to a nuissance. What gives you the right to decide who stays and who doesn't? You claim to have had a vote, but when the voters are friends or when just a few people are aware of such a circus display of democracy, that is not fair. There definitely seem to be a lot of people in this world who agree with me when I state the Phantom and the Invisible Man are icons:

Internet sources: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261135/usercomments

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Invisible-Man-Claude-Rains/dp/B00006RHV3/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_1_2/026-3005969-9198867 "The Invisible Man is one of the most impressive Universal "monster" films of the 1930s, a motion picture masterpiece still as vibrant and engaging now as it was in 1933... It is well worth the money of any sci-fi fan who wants to see how the genre started." - D. Pearce.

"One of the greatest films of all time!" - viewer

http://www.amazon.com/Universals-Collection-Frankenstein-Invisible-Creature/dp/0783242379/sr=8-2/qid=1162160146/ref=sr_1_2/102-8671159-4568912?ie=UTF8&s=dvd

"Universal's Classic Monster Collection (Dracula/Frankenstein/The Mummy/The Invisible Man/The Bride of Frankenstein/The Wolf Man/The Phantom of the Opera/The Creature from the Black Lagoon) (1943)" - amazon.com

Universal Studios, Critics, and countless others all place Invisible Man and the Phantom in the same category: HORROR ICONS - the grandaddy of today's modern Horror Icons.

AND if you want to talk about popularity, more people know either the Invisible Man or DEFINITELY the Phantom of the Opera more than the Creature from the Black Lagoon and Jigsaw COMBINED but their influence/impact worldwide (the box-office gross, with regards to inflation of course, legacies, plays, and number of books influenced by The Phantom or the Invisible Man, are testemants of their legacy, iconic status, and much more so than Jigsaw or the Creature). Don't mock up the Horror Icons template for the sake of being stubborn.

well what do you know, ALL THE HORROR ICONS on the TEMPLATE are right on Universal's DVD Box Cover (not all of their monsters of course, just the icons): http://www.amazon.com/Universals-Collection-Frankenstein-Invisible-Creature/dp/0783242379/sr=8-2/qid=1162160146/ref=sr_1_2/102-8671159-4568912?ie=UTF8&s=dvd

Like Sam Beckett I'm going to put right where once went wrong and add the Phatom and the Invisible Man to the list of Horror Icons because they belong there.

This 'TALK' page's history does not offer enough evidence of mass voting (only a few votes) which would justify Bignole's claims of a majority vote decision being made. This page points out to the subjectivity of the few editors who write in it.

Let's break this down. First you claim The Phantom is a pioneer is disfigured horror characters, and you go on to compare him to Jason. Jason didn't use his machete (which wasn't his only weapon) as a means to 'scare', but as a means to kill. Jason was a mass murderer, The Phantom was a seriously misunderstood person that wasn't about killing anything and everything. "Spawning many sequels" does not mean "you are an icon". Also, The Phantom has not inspired many facets of entertain, it was the original book that inspired all those things. It had nothing to do with Chaney. Hence the reason why we didn't include "The Phantom", because it isn't him that was legendary it was the original story. What you are mistaking is a famous scene in Chaney's movie, but that doesn't make him iconic, it just makes the scene historic (that would be the unmasking scene).

The Invisible Man wasn't the first person to dabble in "corruption of power". Frankenstein came almost 80 years before The Invisible Man (book wise), and that was the ultimate corruption of power. As for films, Frankentein came out 2 years before Invisible, so it wasn't like he started this revolution of "corruption of power" scientists.

I've explained to you why Jigsaw is on the list. It is because Jigsaw is the the beginning of a new wave of horror, of a killer that never actually kills. He's the Norman Bates of the millenia. People forget the Phantom and the Invisible Man all the time, heck the Phantom isn't even part of Universals "Legacy Collection". They don't even considered him part of the same league as the rest of the classic monsters. The Gill Man is shown beside the likes of Frankenstein, the Wolf Man and Dracula more than either The Invisible Man or The Phantom. We can't go including every single "classical monster", just like we can't include every single "modern monster". Bignole 02:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this don't you understand FF7SquallStrife7? -- Mikedk9109 (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, of course, agree that the Phantom and Invisible man should be listed. I can concede with Bride being removed, but really, there is so much backing the Phantom and Invisible man being icons that it's improper that they not be listed here. Though I enjoy Jigsaw and the SAW films, there is nothing currently to establish him as an "icon" other than an opinion - it's just too early. I guess the way to decide who should stay and who should go, should be to explain what impact they've had on popular culture w/ sources. FF7SquallStrife7 did a lot of work providing resources to back his/her argument. I think this warrants their addition to the list. Also, I think if anyone would like to add any additional "icons" to the list, they must back it with sources to establish their argument - which would help with the issue Bignole addressed above. Ucantnot 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add: why doesn't Invisible Man and the Phantom be added - and from this point, if anyone wants to add someone to the list, they must back it with reference links to show an icon status.Ucantnot 05:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HORROR ICONS SURVEY - RULES[edit]

Thank you for the support, Ucantnot. It seems on this template, only the opinions of a few people matter despite resources and detailed explanations countering the opinions of the few. Having gone through an edit war of epic proportions and breaking the 3RR, I'm going to be a little more productive here by starting the "Survey of Horror Icons."

The Goal of the Survey is simple: To serve as evidence of the opinions of all the editors who contribute or visit the template regarding their approval or disapproval of a certain horror character being on the Horror Icons Template TEMPLATE: Horror Icons.

However, this survey does not need to reach a specific number to allow a horror character "ICONIC" status. Users who wish to express their opinions need only to place their signature (four tildes ---> ~) (one signature per username will be counted. SOCK PUPPET signatures won't be counted) under the character they wish to "vote" for and provide a good reason as to why they think the character is an icon, with support from credible references (links to them are great).

RIGHT TO EDIT THE TEMPLATE - When without a reasonable doubt a candidate (must be a horror character in film) for Horror Icon status receives significantly more signatures (votes) in favor of his/her becoming a Horror Icon than signatures (votes) not in favor of his/her becoming a Horror Icon, the horror character (candidate) has the right to be on the TEMPLATE and remain there until deemed as being not in favor.

I hope this will help set the foundation for a greater, more civilized consensus towards establishing which horror characters are Horror Icons without producing fruitless edit wars.

By the way, feel free to suggest the adding of any other horror characters if you truly feel we've failed to acknowledge them, by using issuing a survey similar to the one below. Need help? See Wikipedia: Straw polls

(FF7SquallStrife7 08:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

VOTE FOR HORROR ICONS[edit]

The following pertains to horror characters whom Editors feel deserve or do not deserve to be acknowledged as a Horror Icon.

What's an icon? According to Dictionary.com, an icon is: "One who is the object of great attention and devotion; an idol: 'He is... a pop icon designed and manufactured for the video generation' (Harry F. Waters)." --Dictionary.com website.'

If you wish to express your opinion, simply use four tildes (~~~~) to place your signature under your supported position along with a brief comment (and perhaps a reference) to support your vote. You may also add further comments in the "Discussion" section of this survey. Please be considerate in your comments and remember, 1 signature.

HORROR ICON CANDIDATES: ARE THEY ICONS?[edit]

Please vote on which you wish to include

The Invisible Man & The Phantom

FF7SquallStrife7 - see below discussion
ucantnot - I think the links and discussion below prove their worth to the listing.

The Invisible Man

Bignole 14:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC) - Will explain later (probably after this weekend) kind of have a lot of things for school that take precedence right now)[reply]

The Phantom

Neither of them

The Alien & King Kong

King Kong

(FF7SquallStrife7 17:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)) - "HE may be more than 70 years old, but King Kong is still reckoned to be the most terrifying movie monster of all time" - Liam McDougall, The Sunday Herald. Full article: [1].[reply]

Neither of them

Bignole 17:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC) - I say neither, or in the least not "The Alien" because he is definitely Science Fiction, and not Horror. But I left my argument as to find out about Kong's actual genre. We have to remember that being a "monster" doesn't mean they are Horror Monsters.[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The Invisible Man

The Invisible Man is indeed iconic. Decades after the books and novels based on this character, readers and film critics alike still associate the Invisible Man with classic movie monsters such as Frankenstein's monster and the "Gill Man."

He's in the Universal Studios Legacy Collection along with others on the template such as Dracula, The Creature, Frankenstein's Monster, to name a few. With outdated special effects from the 1930s, Universal's PR certainly believes that according to the nation's demographics, young and old critics alike will buy the movies for their admiration and intrigue for The Invisible Man himself as a character.
Amazon.com's own professional editorial review: "For the first time ever, the original The Invisible Man film comes to DVD in this extraordinary Legacy Collection. Included in the collection is the original classic, starring the renowned Claude Rains, and four timeless sequels, featuring such legendary actors as Vincent Price and John Barrymore. These are the landmark films that inspired an entire genre of movies and continue to be major influences on motion pictures to this day."

http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Man-Collection-Returns-Revenge/dp/B0002NRRRO/ref=cm_lm_fullview_prod_14/102-8671159-4568912

And still On people's TOP LISTS http://www.amazon.com/Best-Classic-Monsters/lm/25QKCXHWMZ0YU
This character has been alluded to throughout our culture even to this day. Check the respected Wikipedia article The Invisible Man under Allusions/references from other works where you'll find this:

"**Allusions/references from other works Rock bands Queen, Helloween and Marillion have all recorded songs called "The Invisible Man"; Scatman John covered Queen's version. The British satirical show Spitting Image also featured a song called "The Invisible Man", sung by the puppet of then-Employment Secretary Tom King.

The character of the Invisible Man, given a full name of "Hawley Griffin", appears in the graphic novel The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen by Alan Moore. In the movie adaptation, the character is renamed "Rodney Skinner", and instead of being the inventor of the formula, he is a thief who stole the formula. Skinner was especially created for the film due to copyright issues regarding the 1933 Universal film.

Ken Hill adapted the book to play form in 1991, and it debuted at Theatre Royal Stratford East in 1991. It played in the West End in 1993 with Michael N. Harbour as Griffin.

Invisible Man is Monster in My Pocket #46. In the comic book series, he was allied with the good monsters. In the animated special, he was rechristened Dr. Henry Davenport and became leader of the good monsters.

The book Chasing Vermeer by Blue Balliett mentioned this book and movie.

Science In 2006 Graeme Milton at Utah University and Nicolae-Alexandru Nicorovici at Sydney University of Technology claimed to have worked out how to make a "cloaking device" to render objects invisible at certain frequencies of light. The cloaking device relies on recently discovered materials that have a negative refractive index, which effectively makes light travel backwards.

Russian writer Yakov I. Perelman pointed out in Physics Can Be Fun (1913) that from a scientific point of view, a man made invisible by Griffin's method should have been blind, since a human eye works by absorbing incoming light, not letting it through completely. However, Wells seems to have taken this into account; the Invisible man is not completely invisible, as the "colored part of the back of his eyes" (presumably retinas) remain visible, although "fainter than mist".""

SOURCE: The Invisible Man article.

Critics agree that the Invisible Man is a pioneer himself because he is The Invisible Man film is "of course, the great-granddaddy of any movie with an invisible antagonist." Just like the 'SAW' films are pioneers in having an antagonist that allows people to kill themselves. The Invisible Man himself was one of the first invisible antagonists on film, depictions of an invisible man, his bandages and sunglasses remain the trademark of any invisible man (Kevin Bacon's character in "Hollow Man" even borrows the trademark and is a mad scientist modeled after the Invisible Man character).

The Invisible Man, as you'll find in the The Invisible Man Wikipedia article is in today's comic books, novels, music, and mainstream media. What is more iconic than this?

The Phantom

The Phantom is another Horror Monster regarded highly as being in the ranks of Frankenstein's monster, The Mummy, and the like. He is in Universal Studio's "Monster Legacy Collection," remains one of the most classic monsters, is one of the precursors to disfigured horror monsters depicted in film, ahead of Jason, Michael Myers, who are all disturbed, somewhat disfigured, and hide behind a mask while venting their madness.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Monster-Legacy-Collection/dp/B0002W11TU

The Phantom himself served as a vehicle that helped Lon Chaney deliver us the breakthrough disfigured mad antagonist as evidenced by the famous "unmasking scene" that remains embedded in our culture.

Check: From Leonard Maltin's Movie & Video Guide "Famous unmasking scene still packs a jolt, and the Bal Masque is especially impressive..." from http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/B0000AKY58/ref=dp_proddesc_0/102-8671159-4568912?ie=UTF8&n=130&s=dvd

From the Actor

"Chaney's masterpiece. His portrayal of Erik, the disfigured musician, though often imitated, has never been duplicated" --

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/B0000AKY58/ref=dp_proddesc_0/102-8671159-4568912?ie=UTF8&n=130&s=dvd

The film, because of its highly complex, genre-defining character who preceded the Count in film is even in the National Film Registry for preservation because of the character's impact and portrayal in culture.

Go check out the list here: List of films preserved in the United States National Film Registry on Wikipedia. (FF7SquallStrife7 08:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

You guys have fun arguing over this template, because I'm ceasing editing it anymore. This war is causing me too much stress and I'm removing this template from my watchlist. So, go ahead and bicker over who is iconic, and when you come to a decision, come tell me. Thanks. -- Mikedk9109 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Alien

I'll have to agree with the film experts who say the alien is a close runner-up to King Kong as the most terrifying movie monster of all time. [2].
(FF7SquallStrife7 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I also think that Alien should be on this template. While the first movie is science fiction, it is also a horror movie. The two genres don't disclose each other. If I remember correctly someone (Scott? O'Bannon?) said that Alien is basically a haunted house film in space and Alien is widely concidered to be a horror movie, an influental one.81.175.134.236 15:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong

I'll have to agree with the film experts who say he's the most terrifying movie monster of all time. [3]. In 1933 when Kong first appeared on screen, he terrified viewers because at the time, a gigantic monster on film due to the technology at the time which made it difficult to execute, was revolutionary. It was also horrific to many viewers (please remeber it was 1933; "horror" was not as graphic and disturbing as it was by today's standards) and helped define the characteristics of a typical movie monster.
Part of what makes an icon is that he/she helps bring something new to the way people experience something whether through film, music, or books, and does so with immense popularity and recognition from those who objectively critique the subject. (FF7SquallStrife7 17:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

On the subject of horror in Kong's case, we must remember that horror and fantasy can closely resemble each other. Think back to Dracula and the concept of vampires; all based on fantasy (to the slightest extent) in the sense that they defy the realm of realism. It is impossible for someone to become an undead creature of the night and spontaneously combust when exposed to sunlight. King Kong in my opinion falls more under fantasy than science fiction, where many have placed him. Just as he suspends of belief like vampires, zombies, etc, he also terrifies many of us (maybe not today, but definitely in the original 1933 film) and thus should be recognized as an icon. (FF7SquallStrife7 17:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

But fantasy isn't science fiction all the time. Look at your link, his comparisons are with Science Fiction creatures, not with Dracula. I don't think the list that he was named #1 in was a horror list, but just a list of terrifying monsters, both horror and science fiction. Kong wasn't about a mythical creature, it was about some dinosaur of a creature, a creature that should have died a long time ago but never did, hence the dinosaurs that were also on the island. It was about evolution having skipped this one little island. Dracula wasn't about evolution, or any type of science, it was about spituality. As for Horror and Fantasy closely resembling each other; are you saying that A Nightmare on Elm Street closely resemebles Lord of the Rings? That's horror and fantasy right there. I think Kong, along with The Alien, and Godzilla are part of the Science Fiction culture of monsters, and not of the horror culture of monsters. Unless you want to go about changing the template into just monster icons, and then have subsections for each genre, but that's a different survey. I think what's being associated here is that a monster that scares is not necessarily a monster of "horror". Bignole 17:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template should be moved and renamed to "Monster and Horror Icons in Film". So then we can include all monsters that are sci fi, fantasy and horror. Then the template would provide more information, and we could divide it into subsections, like horror, sci fi, and fantasy. -- Mikedk9109 (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very thin line between the sci-fi and horror genre where the monster, King Kong stands on. He's depicted differently throughout the remakes of King Kong. However, the original 1933 version started as the first vision and interpretation of Kong playing the role of a savage, gigantic beast who eats and kills his human enemies. It's true that he's a lost relic of nature and only kills because he feels threatened at times, but nonetheless, he is a "monster," kidnaps a damzel, and terrorizes an entire city.

The story of Frankenstein's monster bears many characteristics strikingly similar to science fiction similar to King Kong, yet Frankenstein's monster is considered horror. In Frankenstein, you have a mad scientist who creates a monster who mindlessly kills innocent victims. The story did not intend to become just a horror tale but moral about how science corrupts man into thinking he is a god and much of this concept was portrayed in the films. "Friday the 13th" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street" are plainly horror, not questioning science or serving as an example of what science, technology can do. As for King Kong, he is almost like Frankenstein, a monster unleashed to the world because of some type of human corruption; greed in this case.

Also look to the recent films portraying monsters such as the giant spiders in "8-Legged Freaks," the killer shark in "Jaws," giant crocodile in "Lake Placid" and "Crocodile." There are so many movies that portray monsters that kill to survive or based on instinct unlike the serial killers of slasher films. These films portray giant animals just as the King Kong film does, yet, they still fall into the Horror Genre. King Kong falls into many genres at once; horror, romance, science fiction, because of the resurfacing of the original concept of "Beauty and The Beast" in which a horrendous beast loves a complete opposite. There are many films today in which a vampire loves a human but just because a vampire is a vampire, such films ("Queen of the Damned") for example are considered Horror.

This is why I think that we maybe need to revamp the template to include sci fi and fantasy, so that we aren't limiting our field, especially with many creatures falling on the line between those fields. Bignole 23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The better updated version of this dumb template[edit]

Sorry but this template is grossly misinformed, Jigsaw Killer is an icon? Last time I checked, Jack Torrance and Sadako from Ringu were more recognizable around the world than Jigsaw, not to mention King Kong. My template which I have moved to Template:Horrormovie_Icons I believe is much more correct and based on the reality of true horror movie icons. Piecraft 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yours being better is complete crap. You just created a new one to suit your needs since you cannot edit this one. Who the hell is The Toxic Avenger and Xenomorph? You call them icons? -- Mikedk9109 (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You lot either have no clue about horror cinema or you're just playing dumb. Xenomoprh is the alien creature from the famous Alien series - if you are not aware of how popular this monster/creature is in the horror (as well as sci-fi) world then you are folling yourself and ignorant to the facts. This template is irrelevant as it is not justifying the icons of horror rather than placing "particular" icons that the author feels are relevant. On MY template which yes I took the design from this one (shock horror), I never denied this - on my template you will find all the true icons of horror which are acknowledged worldwide in the horror community. Your "pop culture" argument defeats the purpose for this template, as it is not a horror pop culture icon, it is icons of horror that represent famous and recognised characters in well known horror franchises or films that are clearly represented and appreciated on a world wide scale. Get your facts straight, before you begin to try to argue with me about what is a horror icon and what isn't. Any horror afficionado or theorist will clearly state that the aforementioned characters I listed on MY template are correctly placed according to their status as "icons" represented in the genre of horror. Don't believe me? Check out on the internet yourself, do a search for horror icons on google and see what you get Mr. Genius. Piecraft 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, be civil. No I'm not going to argue with you over this stupid template. I was blocked for the 3RR with two other users, and this template put alot of stress on me. So no, I won't argue. But I will however say this. You say "on my template you will find all the true icons of horror which are acknowledged worldwide in the horror community." Might I ask, where are they acknowledged? In your head? -- Mikedk9109 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in my head, very droll. No recognised by the horror community at large all over the world. Jigsaw?? and Count Orlok are recognised but not more so than Damien Thorn or Jack Torrance or the Alien creature. Remember these are icons that have been recognised by their films not some silly voting poll you've orchestrated on this talk page which is highly ridiculous. Yes I've read how you managed to conduct your scientific examination of what is an icon, you found a definition of the unreliable dictionary.com (rather than a paper dictionary) and then you decided to have a voting poll here, that is hilarious. Where is Jekyll and Hyde? and Franbkenstein's Bride and King Kong? And King Kong for your information WAS and STILL is considered a horror movie, especially the 1930 version, along with the first Godzilla movie - they involved a monster killing people and this equates to a horror movie regardless if they're funny now. Once again get your facts straight before attempting to appear knowledgable in an area you clearly are not. Piecraft 22:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You clearly have no respect for what other people have done. Like putting the title "The better updated version of this dumb template". If it's so dumb then why are you arguing over this "dumb" topic. We (as in me and the other users who voted on this template) have gone through everything to make this template good, and then one user comes along and says "oh, mines better, lets use it." Well, go ahead, because I'm done arguing with you. But I'm sure another user will come along and argue with you too. -- Mikedk9109 (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are corrent that perhaps I was slightly rash in the choice of title, but I still think this template is complete misinformation, thus the reason I referred to it as dumb, also the way in which you handled the choice or selection process of characters. As for you continuously stating you don't want to argue you seem to keep returning to put forward your point. Oddly enough neither you or Bignole have come up with any aces as yo why the characters I put on my version of the template are NOT iconic, other than your banter that you have never heard of or do not think they are - which is YOUR opinion. Once again, I keep repeating this but I feel I must because you don't seem to understand, Wikipedia is for the factual information, and you NEED to seriously check your facts before posting a template out of your own interest from the opinions of people on a talk page who vote for the characters according to who THEY think is iconic. The characters I listed ARE iconic, and the reason for this is justified by any horror film website or book dedicated to the genre or the "Monster" character in film theory. Check it out for yourselves THEN get back to me. I don't care what you lot voted for, it is entirely irrelevant to the facts. Piecraft 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it goes against Wikipedia policy for both to exist simultaneously, one should redirect to the other. I quite like some aspects of Piecraft's comprehensive template but on the other hand I also feel that it should be a Slasher film horror icons template, so that there is some similarity between the characters included. Personally I would like to see this template expanded, but not to the extent of Piecraft's. Xenomorph and Predator are definitely icons, but do they deserve to sit alongside Freddy Krueger? At least Ash Williams should.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just read it's going to be deleted! That's fine then, Bignole's IS better...~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong Still The Best[edit]

I noticed Piecraft's horror icons template included King Kong and I must say, judging by the response in which film critics have fairly recently placed him on the pedestal of being the best movie monster, I would say that grants him iconic status. [4] --article.
I'll place him in the horror icon candidacy. However, if anyone feels like placing him on the list with no objections, I'll support the inclusion. (FF7SquallStrife7 16:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

We need to figure out where he falls in genre. Most over-sized creatures actually fell into science fiction. Godzilla is a given from ICON status, but he's science fiction and not actually "horror". I'm not sure about King Kong's place, but it would seem that a giant Ape would be more likely to fall in the Sci-Fi area that the Horror area. Bignole 17:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]