When I was very little, Boris Karloff's Thriller ran on network TV. I never got to see an episode because my parents both said the show was terrifying. For years and years, I heard about classic episodes, how "frightening" they were, how the entire series was the height of horror. Even Stephen King said it was the scariest show ever on television.
Well, finally, via MeTV, I've been watching episodes of Thriller, and I gotta ask...where's the thrill? The scariest (if you want to call it that) episode I've seen so far was "The Grim Reaper," only because it had a weird vibe, and I love early Bill Shatner. But we never got to see the Reaper come out of the painting, so it was all a lot of talk, talk, talk. In fact, that's what I see and hear happening through most of these so-called "horrifying" episodes---talk! The one tonight, "Flowers of Evil," came highly recommended, and I found myself nodding off. Just one long bore.
I think most of the people who love Thriller are actually affected more by nostalgia than reality. To me, the show's a dud. I find The Twilight Zone much scarier, and The Outer Limits makes Thriller look like amateur night at my local high school.
Have I just missed the "good" episodes? And if I have, where are they? I've been watching this for over two months! No wonder the show didn't last long.
Rod
Pigeon's From Hell, La Straya (sp?), and The Devil's Ticket are all pretty creepy episodes.
The other thing you have to consider is the show is fifty years old. All of us have become somewhat desensitized to horror for numerous reasons: slasher films, the nightly news, etc. In it's day it was considered scary, as was Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, etc. My dad wouldn't let us what Star Trek when it first came out for fear we'd have nightmares! Do you find any of the Universal Horror films scary? In their day they were.
I agree with Mike (Illoman). I remember watching Thriller when I was 7 and 8 years old in 1961-62 It scared the crap out of me! I still remember Pidgeons from Hell with the brother who had been killed with an axe to the head and his zombie like walk. The Cheaters with the scary makeup at the end. The frightening Lon Chaneyesque London after Midnight character from the Well of Doom. All of these were pretty intense for early 60's televison.
As Illoman stated, I think we have become "desensitized" and the stuff they have put out in the last thirty years or so have made us that way. How can we compare anything today to something from the early sixties. Can you imagine switching the channel back then from a "Thriller" episode to something like "Saw 2" or something similar.
For me then it was scary back in the sixties, now it is nostalgic of which I'll take anytime over being scared.
I watched one last week called "Masquerade" with Elizabeth Montgomery. Not exactly scary but it was entertaining and the sets were fantastic.
Can't wait for the "Dr. Makessan"episode with Boris in the starring role.
Quote from: Jethro on August 20, 2012, 03:17:09 PM
For me then it was scary back in the sixties, now it is nostalgic of which I'll take anytime over being scared.
Jethro, I couldn't agree more with you my friend.
I was blessed to receive a copy of the Thriller box set for my birthday, and have really enjoyed each episode I've watched.
I was watching these on Netflix Instant and the first 15 episodes were more crime/detective thrillers than anything but both episode 16, Hungry Glass and episode 30, Parasite Mansion were pretty creepy but that is all I got to see before the Netflix Instant contract was up; I'd certainly like to watch some more episodes but I would never buy the dvds, I think it is definitely a show that you have to pick and choose which episodes you watch. But you gotta think even one a handful of creepy episodes can make for a lifetime of memories (especially the younger you saw the show), it isn't like you could watch the show over and over back in the day!
I wouldn't say I've become "desensitized" over the years, and I'm certainly no spring chicken at age 59--but I frankly expected more from Thriller. The Outer Limits, especially season one, has very rarely disappointed me. Yet, I've never read that it's the "most horrifying show" ever on network television. Thriller, for some odd reason, has that rep, and based upon the dozen or so episodes I've seen already, I gotta wonder--just who is it scaring?
For example, the Grim Reaper episode. I'll admit there was a cool atmosphere to it, and Bill Shatner is always a joy to watch, but that's it. The ending would've been much more memorable if they'd ponied up to actually showing the Reaper descending on Bill's character, instead of just having an off-screen whooshing sound. As it stands, the episode definitely qualifies as "creepy." But the most horrifying ever? Hardly.
I've also found this phenomenon when I've viewed films from my childhood, stuff like "Earth vs. the Spider" and "The Creature From the Black Lagoon." The horrific scenes are few and far between, and in between are looooong stretches of talk, talk, talk. Think The Blob. One glimpse of the blob, followed by 20 minutes of banter between McQueen and the police, McQueen and his girlfriend or his pals. Wow, how could I have stood this as a kid? Thank God for fast forward!
To me, the most horrifying and consistently scary show on television ever is The Outer Limits. Nothing can beat it. The music, which they used in every episode, is incredible. Majestic, even. The monsters are cool even by today's standards, and the great mixture of dramatics with truly frightening moments is masterful. By comparison, Thriller is a dud. A bore.
Rod
In the early 1980's, with all the money being made from slasher films, "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was re-released to the theatres. I remember how many people who saw the movie leaving the theatre complaining how un-scary it was. Thriller was a well made television show, scarred people when it first came on, and I can't ever recall being bored by any of them. To complain about how un-scary it is to a viewer today, seems to me like complaining how a 1913 Model T Ford doesn't have a self starter.
I have also enjoyed the Thriller series. I haven't seen all of them, but during the late 70's at 2 Saturday morning one of the channels showed reruns and I watched when I could. I do remember one that really creeped me out, it was about a witch and a cat figured into it, but that's all I remember. I am entertained when I watch an episode though.
Thriller was a fairly wellwritten, atmospheric show. I guess you had to see it as a kid and have those stored memories to fully appreciate it. I don't there is a movie or TV show that would really scare most of us jaded horror fans anymore. I do appreciate nicely written dialog and a suspenseful build up in most of my horror fare. Without that you're stuck with boring, in-your-face action horror fare like Michael Bay movies. "Van Helsing" anyone?
Quote from: Zackuth on August 20, 2012, 07:15:00 PM
I have also enjoyed the Thriller series. I haven't seen all of them, but during the late 70's at 2 Saturday morning one of the channels showed reruns and I watched when I could. I do remember one that really creeped me out, it was about a witch and a cat figured into it, but that's all I remember. I am entertained when I watch an episode though.
That might be La Strega. A seriously creepy episode featuring the lovely Ursula Andress. Directed by Ida Lupino. A seriously disturbing show.
I don't even remember who was in it, being well over 30 years since I saw that one.
I mentioned Ida Lupino. It's interesting how many great shows she directed. Some of the best Thriller episodes are hers. She directed some of the Four Star Playhouse series which are quite excellent. She also directed the film The Hitch-Hiker, with Frank Lovejoy that is really suspenseful. She did the Twilight Episode The Masks which was quite creepy.
Quote from: Haunted hearse on August 20, 2012, 06:58:29 PM
To complain about how un-scary it is to a viewer today, seems to me like complaining how a 1913 Model T Ford doesn't have a self starter.
Well, if a 1913 Model T Ford is still being held up as the best car ever produced in America, then you've hit the nail right on the head. Thriller may have "scarred" (I think you meant scared) people in 1962, but there's no way it's the most horrifying show ever produced for American television. It's mildly atmospheric, long on talk, and very short on the scare factor. A handful of episodes do not a "scariest series ever" make, no matter how you cut it.
Loving this for nostalgia reasons is great, but in order to be called the "scariest show on television," it has to compete with every show before and after. Maybe in 1961 or 62, it was the scariest show. But there have been many more since then that frightened me more, and on a consistent--not just a handful--basis.
Rod
I'm enjoying it. Great to view an old horror series for the first time, hosted by Boris!
It was definitley creepy standard fare for its time.
Remember, these were the years when "The Donna Reed Show" and "Leave It To Beaver" were in prime time.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 20, 2012, 09:19:36 PM
Well, if a 1913 Model T Ford is still being held up as the best car ever produced in America, then you've hit the nail right on the head. Thriller may have "scarred" (I think you meant scared) people in 1962, but there's no way it's the most horrifying show ever produced for American television. It's mildly atmospheric, long on talk, and very short on the scare factor. A handful of episodes do not a "scariest series ever" make, no matter how you cut it.
Loving this for nostalgia reasons is great, but in order to be called the "scariest show on television," it has to compete with every show before and after. Maybe in 1961 or 62, it was the scariest show. But there have been many more since then that frightened me more, and on a consistent--not just a handful--basis.
Rod
I would advise you to turn off the TV every time a commercial comes on. If a Twilight fan tells me that Edward Cullen is the most awesome vampire ever, that wouldn't make me change my opinion about Bela Lugosi, or Christopher Lee. Hey Yendor, did I ever mention that Keaneau Reeves is the most super awesome actor who has ever performed?
Quote from: Haunted hearse on August 21, 2012, 09:13:10 AM
I would advise you to turn off the TV every time a commercial comes on. If a Twilight fan tells me that Edward Cullen is the most awesome vampire ever, that wouldn't make me change my opinion about Bela Lugosi, or Christopher Lee. Hey Yendor, did I ever mention that Keaneau Reeves is the most super awesome actor who has ever performed?
You're either being obtuse, incapable of grasping my point, or looking for an argument. Thriller is universally recognized as being the "scariest show on network television ever." It's still being labelled that way. Pundits have said it. Critics have said it. Horror authorities, like Stephen King, have said it. As far as I know, no one has ever said Keanu Reeves is the "most super awesome actor who has ever performed" except you. And fans who claim "Edward Cullen is the most awesome vampire ever" are just that, fans. They're not Stephen King, historical critics and pundits.
Most people accept the notion that The Exorcist is the "scariest movie ever made." While others might disagree with that assessment, the film is still touted that way in books, on websites, and even in movie advertisting ("more shocking than The Exorcist! More Frightening than the Exorcist" - take your pick). The Exorcist delivers its horror in buckets. Thriller has yet to deliver any horror in the dozen or so episodes I've seen. In two seasons, how many episodes are considered true horror classics? A handful of great, scary episodes do NOT qualify a series as the most horrifing in television history. Thriller lost that title just a year or so later, when The Outer Limits premiered.
Rod
Rod, I understand what you're saying, and opinions are just that: opinions. Whether it's Stephen King or Joe Blow different things are observed differently by folks. I personally have not seen Thriller touted the way you have seen it. Until I got the box set I had only seen a handful of episodes. I've seen it referred to here and there throughout the years but not as the "scariest show on network television ever". I'm not doubting what you've read or seen, I'm just saying that hasn't been the case with me. I've read Danse Macabre by King but do not recall if it talks about Thriller or not. All I know is I enjoy the show and will continue watching it.
I'm glad you like the show. I WANTED to like the show, too. In fact, I was overjoyed to learn that MeTV was running Thriller, and that I'd finally get to watch it without having to spend big bucks on the entire DVD set. Now I'm also overjoyed that I waited. And rest assured, anyone who knows anything about Thriller knows that it's always been touted as the most horrifying show on television. Case in point...
Here's a quote from a Thriller episode guide on the web:
"During the years since its original run, the series garnered a huge base of fans from all over the world, some of whom are themselves big names in the horror subculture. Indeed, in his non-fiction book on the horror genre, Danse Macabre, even horror-meister Stephen King calls Thriller "the best horror series ever put on TV.""
Rod
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 21, 2012, 04:57:33 PM
I'm glad you like the show. I WANTED to like the show, too. In fact, I was overjoyed to learn that MeTV was running Thriller, and that I'd finally get to watch it without having to spend big bucks on the entire DVD set. Now I'm also overjoyed that I waited. And rest assured, anyone who knows anything about Thriller knows that it's always been touted as the most horrifying show on television. Case in point...
Here's a quote from a Thriller episode guide on the web:
"During the years since its original run, the series garnered a huge base of fans from all over the world, some of whom are themselves big names in the horror subculture. Indeed, in his non-fiction book on the horror genre, Danse Macabre, even horror-meister Stephen King calls Thriller "the best horror series ever put on TV.""
Rod
Well, not to split hairs but calling it "the best horror series" is a far cry from "scariest network series ever". "Best" is a relative term which could mean acting, directing, writing, etc. And I would agree it's a "horror series" because of the subject matter. Although it did have dark comedy as well at times.
This has been an interesting discussion. Case in point: my daughters think all Will Ferrell movies are hilarious. I have yet to see one I can actually sit through except Elf. I just don't find the man that funny. Or Ben Stiller for that matter. I just don't find the man's humor all that funny. Give me the Marx Brothers or Laurel and Hardy any day. Different people perceive things differently.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 21, 2012, 01:10:17 PM
You're either being obtuse, incapable of grasping my point, or looking for an argument. Thriller is universally recognized as being the "scariest show on network television ever." It's still being labelled that way. Pundits have said it. Critics have said it. Horror authorities, like Stephen King, have said it. As far as I know, no one has ever said Keanu Reeves is the "most super awesome actor who has ever performed" except you. And fans who claim "Edward Cullen is the most awesome vampire ever" are just that, fans. They're not Stephen King, historical critics and pundits.
Most people accept the notion that The Exorcist is the "scariest movie ever made." While others might disagree with that assessment, the film is still touted that way in books, on websites, and even in movie advertising ("more shocking than The Exorcist! More Frightening than the Exorcist" - take your pick). The Exorcist delivers its horror in buckets. Thriller has yet to deliver any horror in the dozen or so episodes I've seen. In two seasons, how many episodes are considered true horror classics? A handful of great, scary episodes do NOT qualify a series as the most horrifying in television history. Thriller lost that title just a year or so later, when The Outer Limits premiered.
Rod
You have made it clear that there are opinions you disagree with. All opinions have validity, to the person making that point. There are a number of people who now say Citizen Kane is no longer the greatest film ever made. Me? I love Citizen Kane, but I never thought it was the greatest film ever, despite being told by knowlegable critics that it was. I think Thriller is a great series, and I honestly don't care who agrees or disagrees with that opinion.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 21, 2012, 01:10:17 PM
As far as I know, no one has ever said Keanu Reeves is the "most super awesome actor who has ever performed" except you. And fans who claim "Edward Cullen is the most awesome vampire ever" are just that, fans. They're not Stephen King, historical critics and pundits.
Rod
What I said about Keanu Reeves should have told you I was making an absurd statement, when I called Keanu Reeves an actor. The Biltmore Mansion has appeared in a number of films, and no one has ever accused that mansion of being an actor.
Wait a minute....Keanu Reeves ISN'T the most super awesome actor who has ever performed? Now I'm really mad! Say what you want about "Thriller", but when you attack an American acting icon....you have gone too far, sir!
My boss told me that "The Ghost of Frankenstein" still scares her as much as it did when she was a child seeing it in the theater back in the 1940s! She is not a fan of horror movies of any year. I mention this because some people today are going to be frightened of an episode of Thriller if they are not accustomed to horror, whether vintage or new.
Someone in another thread complained that Halloween has become sanitized and cute. Could it be that some things remain frightening no matter what year?
Quote from: Monster Kid on August 22, 2012, 10:03:09 AM
My boss told me that "The Ghost of Frankenstein" still scares her as much as it did when she was a child seeing it in the theater back in the 1940s! She is not a fan of horror movies of any year. I mention this because some people today are going to be frightened of an episode of Thriller if they are not accustomed to horror, whether vintage or new.
Someone in another thread complained that Halloween has become sanitized and cute. Could it be that some things remain frightening no matter what year?
I'm the one who mentioned Halloween becoming sanitized and cute in another thread.
But for THIS thread, apparently I'm not making myself very clear. It's not that "some people" think Thriller was scary for its time. Lots of people were scared spitless by the witch in the Wizard of Oz! But the witch in the Wizard of Oz or even The Ghost of Frankenstein aren't routinely cited as being the "most horrifying movie ever made." My entire point has to do with this conceived notion that Thriller is the be all and end all of horror shows on television--and not just for that period, but up to this point, as well. I've always assumed it to be true, since I heard and read it countless times over the years. But now that I'm actually watching the thing, I find it bland, talky, empty and far from thrilling or chilling. The Jar episode of The Alfred Hitchcock Hour is much more frightening and weird than anything I've seen on Thriller so far.
I'm anxious to watch Pigeons From Hell, since the story is one of my favorites and a truly frightening tale! But I've a feeling Thriller's Pigeons from Hell will be but a pale imitation, that the old zuvumble woman will just look like an old woman, that the sense of unease and horror will be missing, and that the hero will probably be some young bland actor who never once registers the extreme fear the main character felt in the story. And "The Hungry Glass," another episode I've never seen but comes highly recommended as "fright inducing" will just be another haunted house story with ghosts beckoning people into mirrors or windows or whatever. Horrifying? No. Interesting? Maybe.
Rod
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 20, 2012, 06:32:26 PM
To me, the most horrifying and consistently scary show on television ever is The Outer Limits. Nothing can beat it. The music, which they used in every episode, is incredible. Majestic, even. The monsters are cool even by today's standards, and the great mixture of dramatics with truly frightening moments is masterful. By comparison, Thriller is a dud. A bore.
Rod
This. Right there. The Gospel. Outer Limits is the most underrated TV show of its genre in history.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 21, 2012, 04:57:33 PM
I'm glad you like the show. I WANTED to like the show, too. In fact, I was overjoyed to learn that MeTV was running Thriller, and that I'd finally get to watch it without having to spend big bucks on the entire DVD set. Now I'm also overjoyed that I waited. And rest assured, anyone who knows anything about Thriller knows that it's always been touted as the most horrifying show on television. Case in point...
Here's a quote from a Thriller episode guide on the web:
"During the years since its original run, the series garnered a huge base of fans from all over the world, some of whom are themselves big names in the horror subculture. Indeed, in his non-fiction book on the horror genre, Danse Macabre, even horror-meister Stephen King calls Thriller "the best horror series ever put on TV.""
Rod
Stephen King also complained that Kubrick didn't do justice to his book "The Shinning". So how many people prefer the "official" made for television mini-series based on the same literary work? I realize that it's difficult not to accept as gospel the judgement of the same genius who suggested that McDonaldland was a evil trap for children that was ruled over by a spider that appeared to children as a friendly clown, or gave us the modern cinematic classic "Maximum Overdrive".
So, now you're saying (with a straight face, I assume) that Stephen King's opinion doesn't count. He's only the most successful writer of horror fiction in the history of writing. Oookay.
By the way, "The Shinning" was on The Simpsons. I assume you mean "The Shining." And while it's true that King complained about what Kubrick did to his book, he wasn't a voice in the wilderness. When the film was released in 1980, there was a great hue and cry that the film wasn't true to King's original book, and it's isn't. The ending's completely different, for example. And Jack used a rocquet mallet in the book, not an axe. An axe is so, well, cliche, in my opinion. The TV version may have been more faithful to the book, but even that veered off into new territory. Plus, the casting was decidedly low-rent compared to a Kubrick production. But whatever the case, King was right on the nosey when he complained about what Kubrick did to the book.
Besides, all of that is really moot, since it's not only King who considers Thriller the "most horrifying" television series in the history of television. I've routintely read that elsewhere.
And I'm curious. I mentioned Pigeons From Hell and The Hungry Glass. Is the zuvumbie a horrifying creature? Or merely an old hag? And is the main character a frightened to the core young man or someone who looks like he stepped off a college campus, circa 1962? As for The Hungry Glass, are there shots of people being beckoned into mirrors and windows? I've neer seen either one of these, but I have the distinct impression they're both rather anemic.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 22, 2012, 05:42:49 PM
So, now you're saying (with a straight face, I assume) that Stephen King's opinion doesn't count. He's only the most successful writer of horror fiction in the history of writing. Oookay.
Well, despite the fact that King can spell shining better then I can, let's just put forth the following statement.
So, now you're saying (with a straight face, I assume) that Stephenie Meyer's opinion doesn't count. she's only one of the most successful writers of horror fiction in the history of writing. Oookay. Apparently, considering how bothered you are by King's opinion of "Thriller", you actually have a much bigger difference of opinion then I do with King's opinion.
I would say Thriller, along with the Outer Limits, represented the high water mark of the weird and fantastic as far as network television goes. I especially liked the Yours Truly, Jack the Ripper, Dark Legacy, and The Return of Andrew Bentley episodes.
Quote from: Robert W on August 22, 2012, 08:37:46 PM
I would say Thriller, along with the Outer Limits, represented the high water mark of the weird and fantastic as far as network television goes. I especially liked the Yours Truly, Jack the Ripper, Dark Legacy, and The Return of Andrew Bentley episodes.
I have yet to see any of those. But what about the episodes held up as prime examples of Thriller (and television horror) at its best? Meaning Pigeons From Hell and The Hungry Glass? Hasn't anyone ever seen them? I'd especially like to know if Pigeons follows the story: southern mansion, whistling upstairs, horrible zuvumbie, horror-stricken hero, sheriff who helps him out, old voodoo man bitten by snake, climactic return to the mansion and ultimate discovery. I've a feeling the mansion in Thriller isn't in the south, there's no whistling--but probably singing--upstairs, the zuvumbie looks like an old lady, rather than a monstrosity, the hero is clean-cut and never fully stricken by anything, etc. Can anyone describe the episode for me?
Quote from: Haunted hearse on August 22, 2012, 06:32:26 PM
Well, despite the fact that King can spell shining better then I can, let's just put forth the following statement.
So, now you're saying (with a straight face, I assume) that Stephenie Meyer's opinion doesn't count. she's only one of the most successful writers of horror fiction in the history of writing. Oookay.
Apparently, considering how bothered you are by King's opinion of "Thriller", you actually have a much bigger difference of opinion then I do with King's opinion.
What the heck does Stephenie Meyer have to do with anything about Thriller? And King isn't just "one of the most successful writers of horror fiction," he's THE most successful.
I wouldn't rank King as the most successful writer of horror fiction personally, unless profits are the sole barometer. He's wonderful, but I'd give nods to H.P. Lovecraft, Edgar Allen Poe, and Richard Matheson over King. It's all subjective.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 22, 2012, 08:45:35 PM
What the heck does Stephenie Meyer have to do with anything about Thriller? And King isn't just "one of the most successful writers of horror fiction," he's THE most successful.
You obviously disagree with King about how scary Thriller is, so by your own words, his opinion isn't that valid when it comes to Thriller. Me? I enjoyed the series, still do when it comes on, and don't honestly care who finds it scary. What ever King said about the show has as much validity to King, as Myer's thinking her Twilight series being superior to Harry Potter has to her. I enjoyed "Danse Macabre", even though I didn't agree with everything he wrote in that book. That YOU don't find the series all that scary, doesn't stop me from enjoying it any less then if you found the series scary.
Quote from: Haunted hearse on August 22, 2012, 09:43:03 PM
You obviously disagree with King about how scary Thriller is, so by your own words, his opinion isn't that valid when it comes to Thriller. Me? I enjoyed the series, still do when it comes on, and don't honestly care who finds it scary. What ever King said about the show has as much validity to King, as Myer's thinking her Twilight series being superior to Harry Potter has to her. I enjoyed "Danse Macabre", even though I didn't agree with everything he wrote in that book. That YOU don't find the series all that scary, doesn't stop me from enjoying it any less then if you found the series scary.
Suffice it to say, I do believe King's words and his perspective are more highly valued in genre circles than those of Myer. And yes, I disagree with King about Thriller...now. Before, I figured he knew what he was talking about; after all, he is the most famous horror writer in the world today and has had that honor for decades. Why shouldn't his opinion carry some influence, especially when he's writing a book about horror (Danse Macabre)? Who is Myers but someone who's written a popular series of books and is still relatively new at the game. Her opinion carries very little weight compared to that of Stephen King's. And frankly, I don't care if you enjoy the series or detest it. My original point is obvious: why is it considered a template for television horror when it's essentially quite tame? Not one person here has answered that question. Including you.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 22, 2012, 11:53:27 PM
Suffice it to say, I do believe King's words and his perspective are more highly valued in genre circles than those of Myer. And yes, I disagree with King about Thriller...now. Before, I figured he knew what he was talking about; after all, he is the most famous horror writer in the world today and has had that honor for decades. Why shouldn't his opinion carry some influence, especially when he's writing a book about horror (Danse Macabre)? Who is Myers but someone who's written a popular series of books and is still relatively new at the game. Her opinion carries very little weight compared to that of Stephen King's. And frankly, I don't care if you enjoy the series or detest it. My original point is obvious: why is it considered a template for television horror when it's essentially quite tame? Not one person here has answered that question. Including you.
Should Thriller be considered a template for television horror? In the year it was first broadcast, it was. Should someone still use it for a template for television Horror? We'll tastes have changed, and it's doubtful anybody doing a horror series in this day and age, is going to use a series like "Thriller" as a template. The title of the thread is whether "Thriller" should be considered a Chiller. You don't, I do. It's the same as considering the classic Universal Monster films as horror in a day where most horror comes from CGI effects. I still consider those old films horror films, even though I am not horrified by them.
As far as MEYER is concerned. her Twilight Books debuted in October 2010. Since 2010 King has published "11/22/1963", The eighth Dark Tower volume, and "The Wind Through the Keyhole". Twilight has outsold all of those books King has published with her series about an airhead teenage girl in love with a dirty old vampire passing himself off as a teenager. So, since you value the opinion of an author based on the number of books that author sells, you are compelled by the power of Edward Cullen to place more value on Meyer's opinion then King's!
Yendor, I've been with this discussion from the beginning. I'd like for you to show me where (besides King) you keep seeing Thriller portrayed this way. Are they just random blogs where folks state their opinions? Are they postings by film historians? Like I said, I've never seen it touted the way you say it has been. I'm just really curious where you're seeing this. Thanks!
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 22, 2012, 08:43:41 PM
I have yet to see any of those. But what about the episodes held up as prime examples of Thriller (and television horror) at its best? Meaning Pigeons From Hell and The Hungry Glass? Hasn't anyone ever seen them? I'd especially like to know if Pigeons follows the story: southern mansion, whistling upstairs, horrible zuvumbie, horror-stricken hero, sheriff who helps him out, old voodoo man bitten by snake, climactic return to the mansion and ultimate discovery. I've a feeling the mansion in Thriller isn't in the south, there's no whistling--but probably singing--upstairs, the zuvumbie looks like an old lady, rather than a monstrosity, the hero is clean-cut and never fully stricken by anything, etc. Can anyone describe the episode for me?
Being a long time fan of Robert E Howard, I liked this episode. Not for reasons of horror, or suspense, etc. I thought it was the first time someone got Howard "right". The Conan movies are all wrong, the Solomon Kane was close, but too many liberties were taken with the established back story of the character. I've never see Kull but popular opinion is that is stank. Thriller did Howard justice. It "felt" like a REH horror story. I haven't seen it in a while so i can't really answer your questions about it, but let me tell you this: a lot of folks think Conan defines REH since he's his most popular character. Personally I prefer REH's boxing stories, then Kane, then Bran mak Morn, then Conan in order of preference. My point is even though the masses like something doesn't mean it's that was for all. Even if "the masses" think of Thriller in the manner you describe, doesn't guarantee that's going to be your opinion. And it shouldn't be.
Quote from: Illoman on August 23, 2012, 08:40:55 AM
Yendor, I've been with this discussion from the beginning. I'd like for you to show me where (besides King) you keep seeing Thriller portrayed this way. Are they just random blogs where folks state their opinions? Are they postings by film historians? Like I said, I've never seen it touted the way you say it has been. I'm just really curious where you're seeing this. Thanks!
Whenever I read and have read about Thriller, it's universally described as being the most horrifying series on television. That's not something I've pulled out of the air, and it wasn't established by Stephen King first...so, for you to ask me for specific examples of people describing it that way, I can't. It's like asking me to come up with specifics about Marilyn Monroe being considered the great female sex symbol in cinema. Anyone familiar with Marilyn just knows it because that's how she's always been described. And come on, do you think I'm so shallow as to base my opinion on a blog? For criminey's sake, I've been hearing Thriller described this way for years and years, and I'm 59! If you've honestly never seen it touted that way, you must be a heckava lot younger than me. Why not just ask people on this board what they've heard about the series?
Quote from: Illoman on August 23, 2012, 09:23:20 AM
Being a long time fan of Robert E Howard, I liked this episode. Not for reasons of horror, or suspense, etc. I thought it was the first time someone got Howard "right". The Conan movies are all wrong, the Solomon Kane was close, but too many liberties were taken with the established back story of the character. I've never see Kull but popular opinion is that is stank. Thriller did Howard justice. It "felt" like a REH horror story. I haven't seen it in a while so i can't really answer your questions about it, but let me tell you this: a lot of folks think Conan defines REH since he's his most popular character. Personally I prefer REH's boxing stories, then Kane, then Bran mak Morn, then Conan in order of preference. My point is even though the masses like something doesn't mean it's that was for all. Even if "the masses" think of Thriller in the manner you describe, doesn't guarantee that's going to be your opinion. And it shouldn't be.
So, essentially, you're saying you "like this episode" because they got Howard "right." Not for reasons of horror or suspense, you say. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but Pigeons From Hell is ALL about horror and suspense. That's what makes it so effective. I've read Howard's story many times, and it's honestly the first horror story that's made me look over my shoulder when walking down a dark pathway. I've never read Conan or Kane or any of those others, so I could give two craps about them. But if you claim Thriller did Howard right, but you don't think it was for horrific or suspenseful reasons, then how the heck DID they get it right?
Rod
Quote from: Scatter on August 22, 2012, 09:20:34 PM
I wouldn't rank King as the most successful writer of horror fiction personally, unless profits are the sole barometer. He's wonderful, but I'd give nods to H.P. Lovecraft, Edgar Allen Poe, and Richard Matheson over King. It's all subjective.
Those authors are pioneers, but who else can compete with King since the publication of Salem's Lot and the Shining? They were released in 75 and 77 respectively, and there's not one horror writer since--including all the ones you've mentioned--who've captured the public's attention in such an incredible way. Whenever I hit the beaches in the 70s and 80s, I didn't see people lying on the sands reading "The Collected Works of Edgar A. Poe" Or any of Lovecraft's works. And yes, when I said "successful," I meant commercially--meaning financially. He's probably the most succesful writer of the 20th century, period (and not just horror). None of those other authors you cited can claim the same.
Product description from Amazon regarding the Thriller box-set. Pay particular attention to the first line. Just one more example of how Thriller is usually described by pundits and historians...not just "bloggers" and fans on message boards:
"Now available for the first time ever in any format, experience the complete series hailed as the most frightening ever created for television. Horror legend Boris Karloff (Frankenstein) guides you through 67 unforgettable episodes of suspense, murder and relentless terror, featuring a stellar cast of stars from the golden age of TV. These tales from the minds of such masterful writers as Edgar Allan Poe, Robert Bloch (Psycho), and Cornell Woolrich (Rear Window) include a murderous cursed painting, a supernatural mirror, a demonic tailor's suit, and much more.
Now remastered and packed with hours of exclusive, fascinating extras, Thriller is the ultimate must-have collection for any horror or classic television fan. Featured stars include: William Shatner, Leslie Nielsen, Mary Tyler Moore, Elizabeth Montgomery, Rip Torn, Richard Chamberlain, Cloris Leachman, Alan Napier (Batman), Robert Vaughn (The Man from U.N.C.L.E.), Werner Klemperer Hogan's Heroes), Russell Johnson (Gilligan's Island), Donna Douglas (The Beverly Hillbillies), Richard Kiel (Moonraker), Marlo Thomas (That Girl), Edward Platt (Get Smart), Marion Ross (Happy Days), Tom Poston (Newhart), Natalie Schafer (Gilligan's Island), Richard Long (The Big Valley), Ursula Andress (Dr. No), and many more."
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 23, 2012, 10:18:40 AM
Those authors are pioneers, but who else can compete with King since the publication of Salem's Lot and the Shining? They were released in 75 and 77 respectively, and there's not one horror writer since--including all the ones you've mentioned--who've captured the public's attention in such an incredible way. Whenever I hit the beaches in the 70s and 80s, I didn't see people lying on the sands reading "The Collected Works of Edgar A. Poe" Or any of Lovecraft's works. And yes, when I said "successful," I meant commercially--meaning financially. He's probably the most succesful writer of the 20th century, period (and not just horror). None of those other authors you cited can claim the same.
I would take Edgar Allen Poe, Love Craft, and Robert Louis Stevenson in a heartbeat over Stephen King. I like King, I just think they're better. Considering how well Meyer's books are selling compared to how King's are now selling (and I consider her writing abilities to be the equivalent of Keanu Reeves thespian ability) she is both commercially and financially superior to King. Enjoy reading Twilight, and forgive me if I choose not to. I don't base my opinions on how much the majority of the public likes or dislikes something.
Stephen King is a genre giant. If you honestly believe Meyer is a better, more successful writer than he is, you're living in a dream world or just incredibly naive.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 22, 2012, 08:43:41 PM
I have yet to see any of those. But what about the episodes held up as prime examples of Thriller (and television horror) at its best? Meaning Pigeons From Hell and The Hungry Glass? Hasn't anyone ever seen them? I'd especially like to know if Pigeons follows the story: southern mansion, whistling upstairs, horrible zuvumbie, horror-stricken hero, sheriff who helps him out, old voodoo man bitten by snake, climactic return to the mansion and ultimate discovery. I've a feeling the mansion in Thriller isn't in the south, there's no whistling--but probably singing--upstairs, the zuvumbie looks like an old lady, rather than a monstrosity, the hero is clean-cut and never fully stricken by anything, etc. Can anyone describe the episode for me?
I liked the three I mentioned better. :)
Quote from: Scatter on August 22, 2012, 09:20:34 PM
I wouldn't rank King as the most successful writer of horror fiction personally, unless profits are the sole barometer. He's wonderful, but I'd give nods to H.P. Lovecraft, Edgar Allen Poe, and Richard Matheson over King. It's all subjective.
I honestly can not think of a more influential author than HPL.
Thriller Season 1 & 2 Episode guides,
http://www.thrillerguide.net/ (http://www.thrillerguide.net/)
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 23, 2012, 11:04:42 AM
Stephen King is a genre giant. If you honestly believe Meyer is a better, more successful writer than he is, you're living in a dream world or just incredibly naive.
Better? I think I said that Meyer's writing ability is on the same level of Keanu Reeves acting ability. But the truth is right now, Meyer is the more successful writer financially. If you want to use how popular something is to gauge how great it is, then "Avatar" is the greatest motion picture ever made, and Justin Beiber is a better singer then Tom Waites.
Quote from: Haunted hearse on August 23, 2012, 11:20:09 AM
Better? I think I said that Meyer's writing ability is on the same level of Keanu Reeves acting ability. But the truth is right now, Meyer is the more successful writer financially. If you want to use how popular something is to gauge how great it is, then "Avatar" is the greatest motion picture ever made, and Justin Beiber is a better singer then Tom Waites.
A cash register is indeed a poor substitute for artistic genius. ;)
Gosh, to me, "The Incredible Dr. Markesan" with Boris Karloff as the mysterious doctor who does not wish to be disturbed ranks right up there among the most clammy cinematic horror greats. And I was grown up when I saw this episode (and all episodes of Thriller). It was adapted from one of the great pulp stories. in Weird Tales by August Derleth. Anyway, it was superb. And Dick York and Carolyn Kearney did wonderful jobs. "Pigeons From Hell", "The Hungry Glass" and "The Hollow Watcher" all are scary, could stand up against the gore fests of today. I met a guy once who complained that The Blair Witch Project did not scare him because there was no nudity and very little gore. I guess that nudity and gore are what make a film scary????
Quote from: Haunted hearse on August 23, 2012, 11:20:09 AM
Better? I think I said that Meyer's writing ability is on the same level of Keanu Reeves acting ability. But the truth is right now, Meyer is the more successful writer financially. If you want to use how popular something is to gauge how great it is, then "Avatar" is the greatest motion picture ever made, and Justin Beiber is a better singer then Tom Waites.
I'd be willing to bet Meyer doesn't get the same money contractually than King. Come on. Her books might be more popular right now and outsell stuff like The Cell, and 11/22/63, but she doesn't have the cred King has when negotiating with publishers. Are you honestly saying that King isn't considered the best-selling horror genre writer in the last 40 years? That Meyer's books, her complete library, have outsold the entire King Library? The notion's ridiculous. And no, I know need to cite stats and pull out quotes from historians to back that claim up. Everyone knows it, just like everyone knows Stephen King.
Quote from: Monster Kid on August 23, 2012, 11:58:43 AM
I met a guy once who complained that The Blair Witch Project did not scare him because there was no nudity and very little gore. I guess that nudity and gore are what make a film scary????
I think a little gore and perhaps some nudity would've helped The Blair Witch Project and perhaps make it a little scarier...since I found it a totally dumb exercise in hype over substance. Rate R for swear words. Ok, that's why I go to see R-rated horror films. It certainly wasn't rated that for the horror factor.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 23, 2012, 12:12:24 PM
I think a little gore and perhaps some nudity would've helped The Blair Witch Project..............
Nah, some real atmosphere and a nice creepy soundtrack would have helped that movie immensely...well those things and a freaking steadicam!
Yeah, that too, but a good R-rated horror film should ALWAYS have nudity.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 23, 2012, 12:09:58 PM
I'd be willing to bet Meyer doesn't get the same money contractually than King. Come on. Her books might be more popular right now and outsell stuff like The Cell, and 11/22/63, but she doesn't have the cred King has when negotiating with publishers. Are you honestly saying that King isn't considered the best-selling horror genre writer in the last 40 years? That Meyer's books, her complete library, have outsold the entire King Library? The notion's ridiculous. And no, I know need to cite stats and pull out quotes from historians to back that claim up. Everyone knows it, just like everyone knows Stephen King.
Again, if you're going to argue that how much money someone makes at something, equates them with superior talent, then James Whale was a hack, compared to James Cameron, because he made so much more money then Whale did at directing. Because I don't have your great taste in artistic accomplishment, I would much rather watch an artistically inferior film like "Bride of Frankenstein", then to sit through "Avatar" a second time. And the thing is "Bride of Frankenstein" is in Black and White and OLD! It isn't new and shiny like (sigh) Avatar. And they only have the one explosion at the end of the film with "Bride". Everything blew up real good in Avatar!
I don't think "Bride of Frankenstein" has ever been called "artistically inferior" in any circle. It has been mention in the same group as "Citizen Kane" by noted film makers and respected critics alike.
Quote from: Mord on August 23, 2012, 07:21:13 PM
I don't think "Bride of Frankenstein" has ever been called "artistically inferior" in any circle. It has been mention in the same group as "Citizen Kane" by noted film makers and respected critics alike.
But it didn't make as much money as Avatar! And it didn't blow stuff up as good! Couldn't James Whale have included at least one monster truck in the movie, to make this the perfect monster movie?
Hearse..........you SAW "Avatar"? Good grief man. :o
Quote from: Scatter on August 23, 2012, 10:23:57 PM
Hearse..........you SAW "Avatar"? Good grief man. :o
I saw it once with the family, you couldn't pay me to see it again.
Quote from: Haunted hearse on August 23, 2012, 01:27:52 PM
Again, if you're going to argue that how much money someone makes at something, equates them with superior talent, then James Whale was a hack, compared to James Cameron, because he made so much more money then Whale did at directing. Because I don't have your great taste in artistic accomplishment, I would much rather watch an artistically inferior film like "Bride of Frankenstein", then to sit through "Avatar" a second time. And the thing is "Bride of Frankenstein" is in Black and White and OLD! It isn't new and shiny like (sigh) Avatar. And they only have the one explosion at the end of the film with "Bride". Everything blew up real good in Avatar!
It's not just how much money King has made--which is considerably more than Meyer, have no doubt--it's about his popularity, too. I've been around for a long time and read Poe and Lovecraft and Stoker as a kid and loved their stuff, but I've never seen any author, even one who isn't in the genre, create the craziness that King has within popular culture. People know him by sight, and his books have entertained generations--not just the tween generation, like Meyer's. And I find it very interesting, and perhaps telling, that you keep trying to derail the conversation about Thriller being universally considered the most horrifying show ever on television. What does Avatar have to do with that, since you've mentioned it so often? What do explosions have to do with Thriller? Or the Bride of Frankenstein, for that matter?
My original posting wanted to know just why Thriller had such a reputation for being horrific when I found most of the episodes empty duds. No one's answered that, and you, in particular, have tried your darndest to prove some kind of point--that I'm wrong, I have no taste, that I'm comparing apples and oranges or whatever the heck you're trying to prove. When I asked about Pigeons From Hell and wanted to know if it followed the story, the only response said Thriller got "Howard right," whatever that means. I assume at least one person here has the DVD set or a good memory about the episode. Why the hesitation about answering my rather simples questions: (1) does it take place in the south; (2) is the zuvumbie a horrifying creature or merely an old hag; (3) does the zuvumble whistle to attract her victims or does she yell, whisper or perhaps sing; (4) is the hero horror-stricken and near collapse most of the time, or is he portrayed as a clean-cut college boy; and finally (5) does the resolution follow the story's?
Wait, you're gonna answer with something about Meyer, right? Or Avatar. Or maybe you'll bring in Rod Serling somewhere and crop circles and perhaps I Love Lucy and Red Skelton. Or maybe another monster truck. Or another argument about King's opinion meaning nothing when it comes to things horrifying. Ok, which is it?
I'm curious, exactly what "craziness" is King supposed to have created in popular/herd/consumer culture? I mean has he crated a character like Stoker has that went on to become a cultural icon as Count Dracula has? Has he ever written a poem like Poe has that is generally considered to be the high water mark of American verse? Is his literary style so unique that it inspired a new adjective to come into use in the everyday vernacular as is the case with Lovecraft?
The answer to the aforementioned questions is a resounding no. King is simply a popularist who dabbles in the horror genre with great commercial success. Does that make him a great artist? Hardly.
The reason Thriller has the reputation it does among genre fans is simple, it was a very well made show that starred quality actors in good scripts.
As for the Pigeons From Hell episode, why don't you just watch it for yourself and come up with your own meanings instead of demanding a meaning be spoon-fed to you by someone else.
Quote from: Robert W on August 24, 2012, 08:25:17 AM
I'm curious, exactly what "craziness" is King supposed to have created in popular/herd/consumer culture?
What about the ubercool Goblin Mask he put on that tractor trailer in Maximum Overdrive?
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 23, 2012, 11:25:20 PM
It's not just how much money King has made--which is considerably more than Meyer, have no doubt--it's about his popularity, too. I've been around for a long time and read Poe and Lovecraft and Stoker as a kid and loved their stuff, but I've never seen any author, even one who isn't in the genre, create the craziness that King has within popular culture. People know him by sight, and his books have entertained generations--not just the tween generation, like Meyer's. And I find it very interesting, and perhaps telling, that you keep trying to derail the conversation about Thriller being universally considered the most horrifying show ever on television. What does Avatar have to do with that, since you've mentioned it so often? What do explosions have to do with Thriller? Or the Bride of Frankenstein, for that matter?
My original posting wanted to know just why Thriller had such a reputation for being horrific when I found most of the episodes empty duds. No one's answered that, and you, in particular, have tried your darndest to prove some kind of point--that I'm wrong, I have no taste, that I'm comparing apples and oranges or whatever the heck you're trying to prove. When I asked about Pigeons From Hell and wanted to know if it followed the story, the only response said Thriller got "Howard right," whatever that means. I assume at least one person here has the DVD set or a good memory about the episode. Why the hesitation about answering my rather simples questions: (1) does it take place in the south; (2) is the zuvumbie a horrifying creature or merely an old hag; (3) does the zuvumble whistle to attract her victims or does she yell, whisper or perhaps sing; (4) is the hero horror-stricken and near collapse most of the time, or is he portrayed as a clean-cut college boy; and finally (5) does the resolution follow the story's?
Wait, you're gonna answer with something about Meyer, right? Or Avatar. Or maybe you'll bring in Rod Serling somewhere and crop circles and perhaps I Love Lucy and Red Skelton. Or maybe another monster truck. Or another argument about King's opinion meaning nothing when it comes to things horrifying. Ok, which is it?
No actually, I was going to state that Robert Kincaid, according to what your posting, was a superior painter to Van Gogh. Do you know that Van Gogh only sold one painting in his life, and the amount of homes that have reproductions of Kincaid paintings vastly outnumber those that have reproductions of Van Gogh Paintings? Also Van Gogh was simply an impressionist, and followed the existing impressionist school. Kincaid created the whole idea of painting with light! Furthermore, I've seen some of his artwork electrified! The electric light bulb was invented during the time van Gogh was active. Did Van Gogh use a single electric light in his work? Of course not! We simply have to accept that Van Gogh was nowhere near as talented as Robert Kincaid, the painter of light. Meanwhile, I would much rather watch the lamest episode of "Thriller", over something like "Maximum Overdrive", or "The Tommy-knockers".
Quote from: Robert W on August 24, 2012, 08:25:17 AM
I'm curious, exactly what "craziness" is King supposed to have created in popular/herd/consumer culture? I mean has he crated a character like Stoker has that went on to become a cultural icon as Count Dracula has? Has he ever written a poem like Poe has that is generally considered to be the high water mark of American verse? Is his literary style so unique that it inspired a new adjective to come into use in the everyday vernacular as is the case with Lovecraft?
The answer to the aforementioned questions is a resounding no. King is simply a popularist who dabbles in the horror genre with great commercial success. Does that make him a great artist? Hardly.
The reason Thriller has the reputation it does among genre fans is simple, it was a very well made show that starred quality actors in good scripts.
As for the Pigeons From Hell episode, why don't you just watch it for yourself and come up with your own meanings instead of demanding a meaning be spoon-fed to you by someone else.
One more snarky salvo from someone looking for a fight. I never referred to King as a "great artist." I said he was the most popular writer of the 20th century. And if you don't think King ignited a kind of craziness when he was at his popular peak, you're either too young too remember or just playing devil's advocate. He's never been "literary." Stoker wasn't even literary. You need to do your homework, my friend.
Quote from: Haunted hearse on August 24, 2012, 08:43:51 AM
What about the ubercool Goblin Mask he put on that tractor trailer in Maximum Overdrive?No actually, I was going to state that Robert Kincaid, according to what your posting, was a superior painter to Van Gogh. Do you know that Van Gogh only sold one painting in his life, and the amount of homes that have reproductions of Kincaid paintings vastly outnumber those that have reproductions of Van Gogh Paintings? Also Van Gogh was simply an impressionist, and followed the existing impressionist school. Kincaid created the whole idea of painting with light! Furthermore, I've seen some of his artwork electrified! The electric light bulb was invented during the time van Gogh was active. Did Van Gogh use a single electric light in his work? Of course not! We simply have to accept that Van Gogh was nowhere near as talented as Robert Kincaid, the painter of light. Meanwhile, I would much rather watch the lamest episode of "Thriller", over something like "Maximum Overdrive", or "The Tommy-knockers".
What does any of that have to do with Thriller? I'm glad you know all about the electric light bulb, so maybe you can shed some light on why Thriller is considered the most horrifying television show on television. But somehow I doubt it.
Well, I took Robert's advice and watched as much as I could find of Thriller's Pigeons From Hell on YouTube. The only clips are of the scene where the young hero is awoken, sees his friend walking up the stairs in an apparent trance, and then the shriek that follows. It looked pretty good, but it also had that "empty" sensation--the same thing I've noticed in other Thriller episodes. I never once have gotten the impression that any of the house interiors are real; to me, they all seem like a set, including this one.
It's difficult to make a judgment on a two minute clip, but from what I can tell, the zuvumbie (who is not in the scene) does indeed sing like an opera singer to attract her victims. In the short story, it's a high-pitched whistle, which strikes me as more eerie. Also in the story, Howard's hero is still in his sleeping bag when he watches his friend get up, walk across the foyer and climb the stairs. He's also still on the floor when he hears the shriek, which is what makes him get up. He doesn't go upstairs, to my memory. I believe he hears footsteps coming back along the upstairs hallway, sees a bloody hand on the bannister, and then his friend walks into the moonlight, with his head cleaved in two. In Thriller, the hero runs upstairs, is attacked, his friend buries the axe in the wall and pulls it out, then there's a close up of the axe, and he's pulling it out again. The hero runs out the door and eventually passes out in what looks like a mud puddle.
In the original, and again this is by memory, doesn't he run to their car and see a snake on the front seat? So he continues running, and something with glowing eyes chases him--until he finds the sheriff or some law enforcement official on the road. I believe the official also sees the glowing eyes of whatever's chasing him.
Thriller's protagonist is also a very clean-cut college type. That's ok, it's what I expected since I knew Brandon DeWilde was the lead.
All in all, it made me want to see more. It's certainly frightening, but if that's the height of Thriller's horror--and it seems as if it is, from all that I've heard and read--I still don't understand how the series as a whole has the reputation that it does.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 24, 2012, 09:18:45 AM
What does any of that have to do with Thriller? I'm glad you know all about the electric light bulb, so maybe you can shed some light on why Thriller is considered the most horrifying television show on television. But somehow I doubt it.
Many people have answered your questions on this thread, that we thought it was well written with top performances from great actors, but you refuse to accept the opinions that were given; in order to continue to rag about a defunct television show that YOU found lacking. Also, I'll repeat a question which someone else asked, but you won't answer. Which known critic and/or published writer (besides King) has written about "Thriller" being the most horrifying television show on television?
As kids, we watched and liked THRILLER along with TZ and OL. I remember some episodes being better than others, but the same was true for the other shows. We liked ONE STEP BEYOND, too...though it was probably the weakest of the four. They all had their moments, though.
Quote from: Monster Bob on August 24, 2012, 10:46:55 AM
As kids, we watched and liked THRILLER along with TZ and OL. I remember some episodes being better than others, but the same was true for the other shows. We liked ONE STEP BEYOND, too...though it was probably the weakest of the four. They all had their moments, though.
I also liked One Step beyond. This was an effort to dramatize uncanny events that actually occured. I wouldn't consider it weaker, as much as different.
By "weaker" I guess I really mean cheaper. It seemed lower budget with not as many stars, nor as good a makeup or special effects budget, and very talky at times. You could also see the difference in the technical stuff- camera work, direction, etc. We still liked it though. Host John Newland was like a really strange Ward Cleaver. They always showed OSB at weird times, too, like 2AM.
Quote from: Monster Bob on August 24, 2012, 11:04:47 AM
By "weaker" I guess I really mean cheaper. It seemed lower budget with not as many stars, nor as good a makeup or special effects budget, and very talky at times. You could also see the difference in the technical stuff- camera work, direction, etc. We still liked it though. Host John Newland was like a really strange Ward Cleaver. They always showed OSB at weird times, too, like 2AM.
That's also what I meant by different. All the things you said are true, but still I thought "One Step Beyond" had some decent (for the time ) production values, and it was about dramatizing things that had happened, so it wasn't like "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" or "Outer Limits" which were story and character driven. I can honestly see why people perferred the other shows, but I really enjoyed "One Step Beyond", and found a number of the episodes in a DVD collection a couple of years back, and still enjoyed them.
I was a big fan of all those "true weird" type of books and read them all- STRANGELY ENOUGH!, STRANGER THAN FICTION, RIPLEY'S BION, etc., so ONE STEP BEYOND kind of fit right in to my vocabulary.
Quote from: Haunted hearse on August 24, 2012, 10:30:27 AM
Many people have answered your questions on this thread, that we thought it was well written with top performances from great actors, but you refuse to accept the opinions that were given; in order to continue to rag about a defunct television show that YOU found lacking. Also, I'll repeat a question which someone else asked, but you won't answer. Which known critic and/or published writer (besides King) has written about "Thriller" being the most horrifying television show on television?
Saying Thriller's "well written with top performances from great actors" doesn't answer my question at all, and you know it. My original question was: why is Thriller universally described as the most horrifying series ever on network television? And you're saying the answer is: because it's well-written with great performances from top actors.
Never mind that there are literally dozens of shows that are/were "well written, with top performances from great actors." Yet, none of them have been described as the most "horrifying show" on network television ever.
Apparently, you're either incapable of grasping my point or just trying to bait me. Whatever the case, your last few snarky responses have actually answered my question. Now I know that Thriller isn't the most horrifying show ever on network television because only Stephen King has ever considered it such...and really, as you pointed out, his opinion doesn't matter. Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification!
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 24, 2012, 11:46:57 AM
Saying Thriller's "well written with top performances from great actors" doesn't answer my question at all, and you know it. My original question was: why is Thriller universally described as the most horrifying series ever on network television? And you're saying the answer is: because it's well-written with great performances from top actors.
Never mind that there are literally dozens of shows that are/were "well written, with top performances from great actors." Yet, none of them have been described as the most "horrifying show" on network television ever.
Apparently, you're either incapable of grasping my point or just trying to bait me. Whatever the case, your last few snarky responses have actually answered my question. Now I know that Thriller isn't the most horrifying show ever on network television because only Stephen King has ever considered it such...and really, as you pointed out, his opinion doesn't matter. Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification!
Who besides Stephen King has described "Thriller" as the most horrifying series ever on network television? Why is that such a hard question for YOU to answer?
I've already answered that question, if you'd bothered to read through all my posts. But just as a refresher, here are a few more. Oh, and yes, one is from Stephen King. I know his opinion doesn't matter to you. Better switch on that light bulb, Bub! ;D
Amazon:
"Now available for the first time ever in any format, experience the complete series hailed as the most frightening ever created for television."
Website: "the 50 Scariest Shows of All Time":
"Straightforward in its intentions, the anthology-formatted Thriller focused on the macabre, with malevolent ghosts (the awesomely titled "Pigeons From Hell"), inexplicably murderous eyeglasses ("The Cheaters"), witches channeled through hairpieces ("A Wig For Miss Devore"), and serial killers ("Yours Truly, Jack The Ripper"). And for that, Thriller is hands down the best strictly-horror TV series of all time."
Cinefantastique Online:
"To introduce Boris Karloff's comments on THRILLER, here are some of Stephen King's remarks from his book Danse Macabre. King calls Thriller the best horror series ever made for TV..."
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 24, 2012, 09:16:15 AM
One more snarky salvo from someone looking for a fight. I never referred to King as a "great artist." I said he was the most popular writer of the 20th century. And if you don't think King ignited a kind of craziness when he was at his popular peak, you're either too young too remember or just playing devil's advocate. He's never been "literary." Stoker wasn't even literary. You need to do your homework, my friend.
You said, and I quote, "... I've never seen any author, even one who isn't in the genre, create the craziness that King has within popular culture." Would you care to provide some examples of this craziness King has supposedly created within "popular" culture, I mean aside from the Green Goblin used in that genre defining masterpiece Maximum Overdrive, that is. ;) Again Poe invented the detective genre and wrote one of the greatest poems in the English language, Stoker created what is arguably, along with the Frankenstein monster, one of the most iconic horror characters in the history of stage and cinema., and Lovecraft invented his own philosophy and literary genre. In comparison what has King accomplished, other than this instigating this much publicized cultural craziness I keep hearing about. Really, what specifically has King done that warrants his elevation to such Olympian literary heights that Poe, Stoker, and HPL obtained?
As for King being the most popular author of the 20th century, well let's see who has sold more books than him, shall we? There's Agatha Christie, Barbara Cartland, Danielle Steel, Harold Robbins, Georges Simenon, Sidney Sheldon, Enid Blyton, Dr. Seuss, Gilbert Patten, J. K. Rowling (talk about cultural craziness), Leo Tolstoy, Jackie Collins, Horatio Alger, Jr., R. L. Stine, Corín Tellado, and Dean Koontz.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_fiction_authors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_fiction_authors)
And speaking of the "need to do homework," you're the one who seems ignorant concerning Thriller, not I. Perhaps instead of stumping for King, you ought to go busy your idle hours actually watching episodes of the show rather than demanding predigested opinions regarding it.
Quote from: Robert W on August 24, 2012, 01:17:28 PM
You said, and I quote, "... I've never seen any author, even one who isn't in the genre, create the craziness that King has within popular culture." Would you care to provide some examples of this craziness King has supposedly created within "popular" culture, I mean aside from the Green Goblin used in that genre defining masterpiece Maximum Overdrive, that is. ;) Again Poe invented the detective genre and wrote one of the greatest poems in the English language, Stoker created what is arguably, along with the Frankenstein monster, one of the most iconic horror characters in the history of stage and cinema., and Lovecraft invented his own philosophy and literary genre. In comparison what has King accomplished, other than this instigating this much publicized cultural craziness I keep hearing about. Really, what specifically has King done that warrants his elevation to such Olympian literary heights that Poe, Stoker, and HPL obtained?
As for King being the most popular author of the 20th century, well let's see who has sold more books than him, shall we? There's Agatha Christie, Barbara Cartland, Danielle Steel, Harold Robbins, Georges Simenon, Sidney Sheldon, Enid Blyton, Dr. Seuss, Gilbert Patten, J. K. Rowling (talk about cultural craziness), Leo Tolstoy, Jackie Collins, Horatio Alger, Jr., R. L. Stine, Corín Tellado, and Dean Koontz.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_fiction_authors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_fiction_authors)
And speaking of the "need to do homework," you're the one who seems ignorant concerning Thriller, not I. Perhaps instead of stumping for King, you ought to go busy your idle hours actually watching episodes of the show rather than demanding predigested opinions regarding it.
You honestly think Sidney Sheldon--of I Dream of Jeannie fame--has sold more books than King? Now I KNOW you haven't done your homework.
If you are in possession of information that can refute that which I posted then please print it for the edification of us all.
Also, please provide an example of the cultural craziness that King is supposed to have generated.
Wow, I'm amazed that a little 50 year old TV show can still inspire such passion.
My guess Sheldon has. So Yendor, rather then waste your time trying to watch "Thriller", which you don't enjoy, you could watch a Stephen King marathon instead. You can see the greatest horror films that have ever made it to the screen (both large and small)! Start with "Maximum Overdrive" all the "Children of the Corn" movies, and be prepared to scarred s***less! Meanwhile, what do you want Amazon to say about something they're trying to sell? That the series they want to sell ISN'T worth you're time? When was the last time you ever saw promotional material for any film(outside of John Waters) letting you know how lame the film is? We'll maybe the movie "Battleship", but I don't think that's what they were trying to do with their ads. Obviously there are people who love "Thriller", maybe even find it to be a great series. That you don't share their opinion, is just something in time you'll have to accept, as painful as that might be to you.
About the above post, to any fans of the cinema of John Waters. John Waters himself, has said he set out to make the worst films ever. Sadly, some of the films based on King's works have out done Waters in that respect.
Quote from: Haunted hearse on August 24, 2012, 01:55:07 PM
About the above post, to any fans of the cinema of John Waters. John Waters himself, has said he set out to make the worst films ever. Sadly, some of the films based on King's works have out done Waters in that respect.
I take umbrage at such comments! The Running Man is quite obviously the great motion picture ever filmed!
Quote from: Robert W on August 24, 2012, 01:42:28 PM
If you are in possession of information that can refute that which I posted then please print it for the edification of us all.
Also, please provide an example of the cultural craziness that King is supposed to have generated.
I've yet to see a Sidney Sheldon book or Danielle Steel or Jackie Collins tome adapted to film by Stanley Kubrick, Brian DePalma, and John Carpenter. Frankly, I have very little time to waste arguing with people who use Wikipedia for their fact-checks.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 24, 2012, 02:20:23 PM
I've yet to see a Sidney Sheldon book or Danielle Steel or Jackie Collins tome adapted to film by Stanley Kubrick, Brian DePalma, and John Carpenter. Frankly, I have very little time to waste arguing with people who use Wikipedia for their fact-checks.
Again, if you are in possession of verifiable sales figures that contradict those appearing in the Wiki link I posted then please post them.
Also, I'm still waiting for that example of cultural craziness that King was supposed to have engendered.
And btw, neither Kubrick, DePalma, or Carpenter has ever filmed an adaption of Shakespeare or Tolstoy either. So does that fact make either of these two authors any less culturally relevant?
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 24, 2012, 02:20:23 PM
I've yet to see a Sidney Sheldon book or Danielle Steel or Jackie Collins tome adapted to film by Stanley Kubrick, Brian DePalma, and John Carpenter. Frankly, I have very little time to waste arguing with people who use Wikipedia for their fact-checks.
I've seen "Maximum Overdrive" adapted to the screen by the author. I also know how upset King was by Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining". How dare Kubrick delete such essential elements of horror as hoses that have big gaping mouths with teeth, or moving shrubbery!
Monty Python-The knights who say Ni!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UbtcmjfKa8#)
And let's not forget the King approved tv adaptation of The Shining. ;)
Quote from: Robert W on August 24, 2012, 03:34:22 PM
And let's not forget the King approved tv adaptation of The Shining. ;)
Of course not. That TV adaptation had moving shrubbery. Initially, the Network executives told King the moving shrubbery from the book had to be deleted from the screen play. In an act of desperation, King called forth the Knights who say NI!. I understand the Knights then had a meeting with the network Executives, where they said the word, until it was agreed to include the moving shrubbery from the book in the TV adaption.
If I remember correctly that version had glowing, Scooby-Doo-esque ghosts at the end of it as well, just like King wanted.
Quote from: Robert W on August 24, 2012, 04:06:08 PM
If I remember correctly that version had glowing, Scooby-Doo-esque ghosts at the end of it as well, just like King wanted.
You know the way the hotel manager ghost was thwarted by the little boy, and his future self, you just know he wanted to say "And we would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those darn kids!"
I find it amusing that you two "fans" have turned this thread into a Stephen King Hatred Circle. I thought it was about Thriller. And to actually poke fun at King's reported dismay with Kubrick for having left out the "moving shrubs" and "fire hose with teeth" in The Shining is just beyond me. Have you actually read King's book? Sounds like you didn't, because to make a remark like that reveals this: you're a complete and utter moron.
What makes me laugh even more is your fumbling attempt(s) to dance around the topic of why Thriller is considered the most horrifying show ever run on network television, past or present. Instead, you've glommed onto the comment about King labelling it that way to gleefully denigrate him. Why such hatred? I realize people can be jealous, but to encounter it so overtly is a new experience for me. Sorry that King has clout enough to have his books made into films and that he's famous. So sorry it "bothers you" that he directed Maximum Overdrive. So incredibly sorry that most people wouldn't know Barbara Cartland from Sidney Sheldon, but they'd recognize a Stephen King image instantly. And so sorry he's made more money in one year than you'll make in your entire lifetime. Yes, those are indeed bitter pills...for bitter people, that is.
Since you're both--"Haunted Hearse" and "Robert" - so determined to grind King into the ground by creating an alternate reality, and my original question has been answered by Haunted Hearse in one of his stupidly snarky comments, there's no real point for me to continue. But I would love to read more of your inane comments about King and whoever else you dislike.
Behold, the horror of horrors, the nameless spawn of cgi shrubbery!
(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb42/Robert7779/Shrubbery.png)
Quote from: Robert W on August 24, 2012, 05:45:43 PM
Behold, the horror of horrors, the nameless spawn of cgi shrubbery!
(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb42/Robert7779/Shrubbery.png)
More King hatred. Tsk.
So we changed this from "How dare somebody say a series like Thriller was great, when I found it lame", to a Stephen King Hatred circle. We'll, if anybody should have a problem with King, it's you Yendor. It was King's opinion which made you want to buy "Thriller" on DVD. Furthermore, you found a place on line which agreed with King's opinion, and the Amazon Ad furthered the plot to make you waste money on a series which you've pronounced as not that good. Guess what, I like a lot of what King has written. I also liked the "Thriller" series. If YOU didn't find "Thriller" all that good, and maintain that it's being a dud is why it had a short life, that's on you. As far as "Twilight Zone" is concerned (and I imagine a lot of younger viewers will be ticked off, if they buy the series on DVD, and find it doesn't have any EMO teenage girls or sparkly vampires), that show got close to being cancelled a number of times, because the ratings weren't that good. But there were sponsors, despite the low ratings who would come along, and support what was considered a great series. It simply wasn't all that popular in it's day, but it has been highly influential. Sorry you don't care much for "Thriller", but how popular something is, who recommends something, or how much money it's made should never be used as a substitute for your own judgement on something. When you buy something based on a recommendation, don't be surprised if it doesn't meet your expectations.
By the way, if anybody should be sorry King directed "Maximum Overdirve", it should be King, not you. That film was awful.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 24, 2012, 05:41:22 PM
I find it amusing that you two "fans" have turned this thread into a Stephen King Hatred Circle. I thought it was about Thriller. And to actually poke fun at King's reported dismay with Kubrick for having left out the "moving shrubs" and "fire hose with teeth" in The Shining is just beyond me. Have you actually read King's book? Sounds like you didn't, because to make a remark like that shows you to be a complete and utter moron.
Actually it was you who brought King up. Also where's this example of this King induced cultural craziness you owe me, hmm?
QuoteWhat makes me laugh even more is your complete dance around the topic of why Thriller is considered the most horrifying show on network television ever.
Interesting, well not really, how you've fixated on King's opinion of the show. Perhaps you should inquire of him as to why the show was so horrifying, as you seem so very much obsessed over other people's opinions.
QuoteInstead, you've glommed onto the comment about King labelling it that way to denigrate him completely.
Excuse me?!? You are the one harping on King's opinion of the show, not I.
QuoteWhy such hatred?
I don't know. Why did you start a thread about a show that you're too aesthetically under-evolved to appreciate?
QuoteI've heard of jealousy, but it's rare that I encounter it so overtly.Sorry that King has made more money than you and that he's famous. So sorry it "bothers you" that he directed Maximum Overdrive. So incredibly sorry that most people wouldn't know Barbara Cartland from Sidney Sheldon, but they'd recognize a Stephen King image instantly.
And the mere acquisition of money is your sole definition of personal achievement? Also most people wouldn't know who Nikola Tesla is either, but he died "broke," so according to your standards the man who invented the modern electrical age wouldn't King's equal either.
QuoteSince you're both--"Haunted Hearse" and "Robert" - so determined to grind King into the ground by creating an alternate reality, and my original question has been answered by Haunted Hearse in one of his stupidly snarky comments, there's no real point for me to continue. But I would love to read more of your inane comments about King and whoever else you dislike.
Lol, now I'm creating alternate realities?!? Golly, I had no idea I was in possession of such god-like abilities!
Quote from: Haunted hearse on August 24, 2012, 06:14:46 PM
So we changed this from "How dare somebody say a series like Thriller was great, when I found it lame", to a Stephen King Hatred circle. We'll, if anybody should have a problem with King, it's you Yendor. It was King's opinion which made you want to buy the series. Furthermore, you found a place on line which agreed with King's opinion, and the Amazon Ad furthered the plot to make you waste money on a series which you've pronounced as not that good. Guess what, I like a lot of what King has written. I also liked the "Thriller" series. If YOU didn't find "Thriller all that good, and maintain that's it's being a dud is why it had a short life, that's on you. As far as "Twilight Zone" is concerned (and I imagine a lot of younger viewers will be ticked off, if they buy the series on DVD, and find it doesn't have any EMO teenage girls or sparkly vampires), that show got close to being cancelled a number of times, because the ratings weren't that good. But there were sponsors, despite the low ratings who would come along, and support what was considered a great series. It simply wasn't all that popular in it's day, but it has been highly influential. Sorry you don't care much for "Thriller", but how popular something is, who recommends something, or how much money it's made should never be used as a substitute for your own judgement on something. When you buy something based on a recommendation, don't be surprised if it doesn't meet your expectations.
You bring up a good point. The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, Thriller, Star Trek, The Night Stalker, and The Night Gallery were all short lived shows, yet they have rightfully, imo, achieved cult/classic status.
And the hate just keeps on coming! :)
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 24, 2012, 07:04:26 PM
And the hate just keeps on coming! :)
So says the person whose whole point of starting this thread, was about how much he hated "Thriller".
To refresh your rather selective memory, Hearse, here's my posting that started this thread. Where's the hatred you claim exists?
"When I was very little, Boris Karloff's Thriller ran on network TV. I never got to see an episode because my parents both said the show was terrifying. For years and years, I heard about classic episodes, how "frightening" they were, how the entire series was the height of horror. Even Stephen King said it was the scariest show ever on television.
Well, finally, via MeTV, I've been watching episodes of Thriller, and I gotta ask...where's the thrill? The scariest (if you want to call it that) episode I've seen so far was "The Grim Reaper," only because it had a weird vibe, and I love early Bill Shatner. But we never got to see the Reaper come out of the painting, so it was all a lot of talk, talk, talk. In fact, that's what I see and hear happening through most of these so-called "horrifying" episodes---talk! The one tonight, "Flowers of Evil," came highly recommended, and I found myself nodding off. Just one long bore.
I think most of the people who love Thriller are actually affected more by nostalgia than reality. To me, the show's a dud. I find The Twilight Zone much scarier, and The Outer Limits makes Thriller look like amateur night at my local high school.
Have I just missed the "good" episodes? And if I have, where are they? I've been watching this for over two months! No wonder the show didn't last long."
To refresh your memory, only one person posting here has called other people posting here morons, so it's obvious where "the hate" is comming from. A lot of posters here have made it clear they like "Thriller". Big suprise, considering it's hosted by Boris Karloff, who has a huge fan base here. That so many people like the series seems to be where the anger you display in your postings seem to be comming from; that nobody else who's posted here can't agree with your opinion that "Thriller" has no value, and how you're convinced that more people should agree with you about what a dud series it was. You use the word hate, but it's not hateful to criticise the very person whose high opinion of "Thriller" led you to think think it was worth buying on Amazon, simply because we have the same low opinion of some of his movies (like "Maximum Overdrive") that you do of "Thriller". It's actually clear that you strongly disagree with King's assesment of Thriller, so again, you have a bigger problem with Stephen King then I do. You have some anger issues you need to get through, and I hope you stop seeing hatred where it doesn't exist.
I wanted opinions, Hearse, that's why I started the thread. And I received some great, enlightening ones free of snark...until this one from you. That last line completely changed the course of the conversation. Why not just be civil. Why the snark?
Quote from: Haunted hearse on August 20, 2012, 06:58:29 PM
Thriller was a well made television show, scarred people when it first came on, and I can't ever recall being bored by any of them. To complain about how un-scary it is to a viewer today, seems to me like complaining how a 1913 Model T Ford doesn't have a self starter.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 25, 2012, 02:35:24 PM
I wanted opinions, Hearse, that's why I started the thread. And I received some great, enlightening ones free of snark...until this one from you. That last line completely changed the course of the conversation. Why not just be civil. Why the snark?
My quote
Quote from: Haunted hearse on August 20, 2012, 06:58:29 PM
In the early 1980's, with all the money being made from slasher films, "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was re-released to the theatres. I remember how many people who saw the movie leaving the theatre complaining how un-scary it was. Thriller was a well made television show, scarred people when it first came on, and I can't ever recall being bored by any of them. To complain about how un-scary it is to a viewer today, seems to me like complaining how a 1913 Model T Ford doesn't have a self starter.
So how was that insulting to you? You see insults and snarkiness where it doesn't exist.
Whatever, I've no interested in arguing with you...but I recognize snark when I read it. And I'm sure you do, as well.
And please, though I know this might be difficult for you to do, Hearse, I'd appreciate your not following me to other threads to continue the snarkiness--that's not what I call creating a good, healthy atmosphere for the free exchange of ideas. I'm here to have fun, to learn, and connect with other fans. I'm not interested in getting into a battle of wits with anyone. Please extend to me the same courtesy. Thanks.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 25, 2012, 03:56:03 PM
Whatever, I've no interested in arguing with you...but I recognize snark when I read it. And I'm sure you do, as well.
And please, though I know this might be difficult for you to do, Hearse, I'd appreciate your not following me to other threads to continue the snarkiness--that's not what I call creating a good, healthy atmosphere for the free exchange of ideas. I'm here to have fun, to learn, and connect with other fans. I'm not interested in getting into a battle of wits with anyone. Please extend to me the same courtesy. Thanks.
What you're interested is in telling peoiple how they should think and write. If they say things you don't agree with or like, you call them morons. I recognize a controling individual when I see one, and controlling people don't lead to good discussions.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 25, 2012, 03:56:03 PM
I'm here to have fun, to learn, and connect with other fans.
A perfect illustration of somebody, when given information, willing to learn from that information.
Quote from: yendor1152 on August 24, 2012, 01:39:51 PM
You honestly think Sidney Sheldon--of I Dream of Jeannie fame--has sold more books than King? Now I KNOW you haven't done your homework.
So would you like to give us your source for King outselling Sheldon, or is it you simply can't accept that Sheldon has sold more books then King?
Sigh. You just don't know when to quit, do you? I'm not engaging you in any further conversation. Please extend to me the same courtesy. Thanks.
And.I.will.extend.a.courtesy.to.the.rest.of.the.UMA.and.declare.this.discussion.finished,.as.it.has.long.since.gonne.off.track...The.dead.horse.has.been.beat.enough.
[mod]I also request that the argumentative parties involved, from her on, not comment on each others posts. I especially don't want to see these people quoting each other in an attempt to rebuff the other person's statements/opinions.[/mod]
I'll avoid the usual staement about opinions being like ____holes; everyone's got one. Likes and dislikes are subjective, like comedy.
Boris Karloff's Thriller started out as more of a mystery/suspense show with a few horror-themed shows and then eventually moved more towards the horror and fantastic themes. Like all of the shows mentioned (Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, Kolchak: The Night Stalker, Night Gallery, etc), Thriller had good epeisodes and it had some that were less, well, thrilling. I watched the entire series straight through within the last year. I enjoyed it, but I don't remember finding anything scary in it. BUT (!!!) I seldom find anything scary, probably because I grew up watching monster/horror movies and TV shows. I remember when I read 'Danse Macabre' years ago, that I disagreed with King on anumber of shows and films. I also agreed with him on some things too. That's OK, because we are different people.
Is King a great and important horror writer? Yes AND No. His earlier stuff was definitely more horror and from the 1970s until around 1990, he was THE name in modern horror. The film and TV adaptations of his books and stories were huge. Then he started to have more misses. Not that these films were terrible, just that they weren't of the same caliber as earlier ones. Of course, there were some great and/or successful adapations that were still being done, but the straight horror theme was limited or absent. Some stories were made into movies that would have been better suited to be episodes of a TV show. He still churns out books, but their releases are not quite the events that the used to be. I still enjoy most of them, but as for horror, it would be very difficult for him to recapture lightning in a bottle like he used to. Soooo, both people can be right. But now I've digressed...
As a side note, someone mentioned that THE BLAIS WITCH PROJECT needed a Seadicam. The whole concept of the movie was it was supposed to be "found" footage filmed by these 3 kids. It wasn't supposed to an edited final cut tied up with a bow. That's why I liked it. I thought it was a neat concept. I like it when a filmmaker thinks outside the box and gives me something different. I've always enjoyed the films that creep me out more than those that throw gore at me.
Remember, it's all subjective. You don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you. However, I will not trash you (generic) and expect the same courtesy. The posts in this thread are not good examples on how to exemplify the way the UMA operates, especially as it's getting ready to celebrate its 10th Anniversary.
Rob
OOPS...Sorry Robert. Didn't notice that you had locked the thread. I started my post earlier in the day and didn't get around to finishing to just now.