Boris Karloff's Thriller--is it really a chiller?

[Haunted hearse]

Hearse..........you SAW "Avatar"? Good grief man. 

I saw it once with the family, you couldn't pay me to see it again.

[yendor1152]

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?

[Robert W]

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.

[Haunted hearse]

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?

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". 

[yendor1152]

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.

[yendor1152]

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. 

[yendor1152]

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.

[Haunted hearse]

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?

[Monster Bob]

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.

[Haunted hearse]

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.

[Monster Bob]

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.

[Haunted hearse]

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.

[Monster Bob]

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.

[yendor1152]

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! 

[Haunted hearse]

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?