BUR #26938 has been rejected.
create implication body_horror -> horror_(theme)
I think body horror is a subset of horror.
Posted under Tags
BUR #26938 has been rejected.
create implication body_horror -> horror_(theme)
I think body horror is a subset of horror.
There are images like post #7362634, post #7220176 and post #7080466 in the body horror tag that are intended to be comedic rather then actually creating any sense of unease.
wispydreamer said:
There are images like post #7362634, post #7220176 and post #7080466 in the body horror tag that are intended to be comedic rather then actually creating any sense of unease.
And there is stuff in the horror tag which is already more comedic than actually scary as well but I'd still say fits the spirit of the tag. post #4359165 post #5125684 post #5999712
As long as the theme is there I don't see an issue.
zetsubousensei said:
And there is stuff in the horror tag which is already more comedic than actually scary as well but I'd still say fits the spirit of the tag. post #4359165 post #5125684 post #5999712
As long as the theme is there I don't see an issue.
Personally I would only put the last post there based on my understanding of the horror tag and the second in body horror. The problem in this case is probably the fact that, right now, horror is a subjective tag according to the wiki. A better description could clear this up.
Blank_User said:
How about this?
That still says the posts are "intended" to provoke fear. I don't think any of those three emotions were really intended from post #5781038 which would get the horror tag if this BUR goes through.
wispydreamer said:
That still says the posts are "intended" to provoke fear. I don't think any of those three emotions were really intended from post #5781038 which would get the horror tag if this BUR goes through.
Yes, that seems to be what the tag is for going by the wiki history. I thought you were against the BUR and wanted the description of the tag to be clarified to reinforce its current usage. For post #5781038 to count as horror_(theme), we'd need to widen its scope to include things that are only slightly creepy or unsettling. I don't even think body horror is appropriate here; it's obvious from context that it's just a costume.
Blank_User said:
Yes, that seems to be what the tag is for going by the wiki history. I thought you were against the BUR and wanted the description of the tag to be clarified to reinforce its current usage. For post #5781038 to count as horror_(theme), we'd need to widen its scope to include things that are only slightly creepy or unsettling. I don't even think body horror is appropriate here; it's obvious from context that it's just a costume.
Personally, I would rather keep the scope of the horror tag a bit smaller to exclude comedic depictions. If everyone else agrees with comedic descriptions being included in that tag then I want the wiki description changed to make that fact clearer. If we go with the second option, then I'm fine with the BUR going through.
Sorry if any of my words have been unclear, it's a bit late at night for me.
I think the examples given in this thread don't belong in horror at all, except perhaps post #5999712, and I still think that's pushing it. It's called "horror (THEME)" not "I think this post is kinda creepy." If the overarching vibe of the image is more comedic or cute, then it probably shouldn't be considered horror, even if it might fit for body horror.
wispydreamer said:
Personally, I would rather keep the scope of the horror tag a bit smaller to exclude comedic depictions.
I absolutely disagree with this. The tag is horror (theme) not scary. There is already a pool for that and it's definitely not the right use for horror (theme).
gfz said:
I absolutely disagree with this. The tag is horror (theme) not scary. There is already a pool for that and it's definitely not the right use for horror (theme).
I may or may not have written a ignored thread months ago on this exact topic. forum #257033
I'm fully in support of expanding the tag, but I guess I'm in the minority there.
zetsubousensei said:
I may or may not have written a ignored thread months ago on this exact topic. forum #257033
I'm fully in support of expanding the tag, but I guess I'm in the minority there.
I actually have to address a specific line from that post.
Horror as a theme in most circumstances tends to encompass a lot of tropes and creatures. Werewolves, skulls, haunted mansions filled with ghosts. The subject might not scare you but you wouldn't say that a movie about Dracula isn't a horror film just because traditional vampires are cheesy.
You absolutely would say a movie about Dracula wasn't a horror film, if it was a comedy. Hotel Transylvania is literally a comedy film series centered around Dracula, and nobody is calling it a horror film. I'm pretty sure there are other movies about Dracula that aren't in the horror genre, as well as non-horror films featuring all of the other things you listed as common horror tropes. It's about how you use them, not that they were used at all.
The tag would be utterly useless if we just started sticking every ghost and goblin in the tag just because they're common staples of horror themed media.
gfz said:
I absolutely disagree with this. The tag is horror (theme) not scary. There is already a pool for that and it's definitely not the right use for horror (theme).
The problem isn't just that body horror is occasionally seen in comedic posts, but that it is just as likely to occur outside of horror like in more abstract art (like post #5610213), not all of which is going to qualify for horror (theme). While body horror is, at least in the real world, a subgenre of horror, the artwork we catalogue isn't always going to match those standards.
I don't really want to see something like post #7362634 in a horror (theme) search, that's only there due to it technically being considered body horror. The point of horror (theme) as a tag is for posts that fit the vibe of horror as a genre. And while plenty of body horror posts do that, the fact that exceptions exist inherently makes this implication a bad idea.
blindVigil said:
I actually have to address a specific line from that post.
You absolutely would say a movie about Dracula wasn't a horror film, if it was a comedy. Hotel Transylvania is literally a comedy film series centered around Dracula, and nobody is calling it a horror film. I'm pretty sure there are other movies about Dracula that aren't in the horror genre, as well as non-horror films featuring all of the other things you listed as common horror tropes. It's about how you use them, not that they were used at all.
The tag would be utterly useless if we just started sticking every ghost and goblin in the tag just because they're common staples of horror themed media.
But I would say those are comedy films then with a horror theme. Scooby Doo has a horror theme, but isn't a horror property. I guess the name of the tag then is what I disagree with?
post #7220176 is body horror and has a horror theme, but isn't horror itself. However since our tag is horror_(theme) I would be fine putting it there. Does that make sense?
Knowledge_Seeker said:
The problem isn't just that body horror is occasionally seen in comedic posts, but that it is just as likely to occur outside of horror like in more abstract art (like post #5610213), not all of which is going to qualify for horror (theme). While body horror is, at least in the real world, a subgenre of horror, the artwork we catalogue isn't always going to match those standards.
What definition of horror would you like to implement such that post #5610213 isn't applicable?
post #7580801 uses body horror for a stupid joke and while it might make you go "ew", it is not horror_(theme) in any way.
zetsubousensei said:
But I would say those are comedy films then with a horror theme. Scooby Doo has a horror theme, but isn't a horror property. I guess the name of the tag then is what I disagree with?
post #7220176 is body horror and has a horror theme, but isn't horror itself. However since our tag is horror_(theme) I would be fine putting it there. Does that make sense?
No, those things aren't horror themed. Hotel Transylvania is not horror themed, Scooby Doo is not horror themed. The former is a "monster comedy" without an ounce of horror and the latter is a mystery comedy that is at best a little spooky. They are not horror themed just because they use characters that originated from or are commonly seen in horror media. Theming in this context is referring to the ambience, the vibe, the feeling.
I don't agree with that post being horror (theme), either. I do think that something can be comedic and still qualify for horror (theme), but I also think it's a fine line. That post might include a typically creepy element, but nothing about its vibe comes across as creepy. https://danbooru.donmai.us/pools/22530 is a good example of something that feels humorous while still retaining an unsettling air.
The bulk update request #26938 (forum #283444) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.