User talk:Yaksar/Horror Icons

Archives
October 2006 - November 2006 December 2006 - 24 August 2007

'Living dead' not a character

They are a type of thing, but not a character. Why don't we just add 'vampires' and werewolves to the list while we are at it? Because they like the zombies are NOT characters but a type of a character. Just like we wouldn't add 'serial killer' to the list either. Remove this from the list. Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

They might not be a single character, but the template does not limit that characters have to be just a single entity. Vampires and werewolves are too vague, in my opinion. The Living Dead ae specific characters that are only in George Romero's Dead series and John A. Russo's Living Dead series.... and also their remakes. — Enter Movie (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying the Living Dead isn't an iconic part of horror is like saying the lightsaber isn't a iconic part of Star Wars. It's pretty futile. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. But with all due respect, I think having non-specific characters makes the icon list a little bit weaker. Yeldarb68 (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Great White Sharks and Aliens?!?

1) Not horror movies 2) They are not even a character.

Remove them from the list. Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeldarb68 (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I've said before, the template does not limit that characters have to be just a single entity. Alien was a science-fiction horror film that scared people back then, so therefore, they're horror characters. I didn't put the great white sharks up there, nor suggested them, so I don't know about them. — Enter Movie (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I think Aliens as horror is really border-line at best. I love the Alien movies, but I still don't feel they should be selected for the honour of being on this list when their status as horror isn't very strong. People will see Aliens and then think "well if Aliens is on the list, why not Sadako from the Ring. If Aliens were horror enough, surely, Sadako is too." On a list of horror icons, should we really be placing border-line horror ones? Aliens are iconic, yes, but not horror enough. And great white sharks should definitely be removed. There's nothing horror about JAWS. Not even border-line. Yeldarb68 (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Alien is considered both a science-fiction and horror film by many people. Someone on the archive said that even the creators thought that Alien was also part horror film. — Enter Movie (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most people consider Alien a straight horror movie, jsut with some sci-fi elements. It didn't get all science fiction until later in the series. It jsut makes me wonder about the Predator, since that was a horror/sci-fi, too...

And your right. The great white shark thing needs to be removed. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Predator even a horror film? It my terrify people, but I always thought it as a sci-fi/action flick. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguably Terminator part 1 was a little bit scary. But adding things that are mostly sci-fi and a little bit scary as being horror icons is a bit messy. And I really think the list should be restricted to specific characters and not types of characters (eg, Aliens, zombies, etc). It would just make it more credible and encyclopedic. Yeldarb68 (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The aliens from the Alien series are specific. They are xenomorphs, but people don't really know them by that name. The Living Dead are also specific; they're just not any type of zombie. Otherwise, we'd just put zombie. — Enter Movie (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Even though they are specific types of aliens and specific types of zombies, what is being aknowledged is a type of character and not a specific character. I feel it would be more encyclopedic to stick with specific characters. Yeldarb68 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Predator was considered a horror movie, or at least a horror/action. Perhaps we should change "The Living Dead" to "Romero Zombies"? They're the zombies people think of when they think of movie zombies, and they are more specific. --142.165.197.250 (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Aliens and the living dead should be removed for the sake of encyclopedic standards. Yeldarb68 (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack Torrance... who?!?

I doubt he is iconic "universally". Yeldarb68 (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither is Jigsaw. Jack Torrance should be on the template because he is a well known character from a movie that is often considered the greatest horror movie of all time. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He's performance was definitely terrific. But was it popular enough to be perceived as iconic? That is the question. If you think about it Jason's character portrayal wasn't very deep and all that amazingly portrayed. But this list isn't about that. It's about being infamous. I mean I thought Misery was great, her performance was stunning. However, not infamous enough to be on this list as an icon. I mean McDonalds is iconic as a food chain, while a fancy restaurant with quality food might not be. It's not about quality- being an icon is all about popularity and recognisability. Yeldarb68 (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ghostface

I don't recall we ever reached a consensus on our Scream friend. He reinvented the slasher genre, making pretty much every horror movie after Scream possible. The only reason I read against him in the archive was that his name wasn't recognizable. However, I think the costume is more then recognizable enough to merit inclusion. --Plasma Twa 2 03:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that, if Jigsaw and Chucky are worthy of this list, Ghostface more than deserves it.--68.149.181.145 19:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. I thought you agreed 'cause you didn't reply for days.

I guess you can say that Ghostface is recognizable for the costume; go ahead. By the way, Jigsaw's not iconic; Chucky is iconic because everyone knows the little doll killer. — Enter Movie 19:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Jigsaw's M.O., his puppet and his voice are definitely iconic. I see nothing iconic about 'Ghostface'. It's not even a character, it's a costume. It's nonsense. 'Ghostface' is really five different characters, none of which are memorable. I'm being objective here, because I actually love the Scream films. Yeldarb68 (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Scream revived the horror genre in the 90's. If Ghostface is just a costume, then how is Jigsaw's puppet and voice more iconic? And, dn't change the subject name. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute.... Ghostface is only memorable and recognizable because of the costume. The costume is definitly not a character (because it's an object), and the villians that were in the Ghostface costume weren't iconic either. I'm suprised I looked passed that. So in the end, I think Ghostface is not really iconic because it's not a character. — Enter Movie (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not about Jigsaw's voice, it's the content of what he says that indicate his personality and M.O. As for Scream reviving the horror genre? It wasn't stagnant for very long really, so reviving it wasn't that big of a deal as the period it had gone stagnant was arguably quite short in the grand scheme of things. 121.216.112.200 (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure many people know the actual guy behind Jigsaw (I forget his name at the moment). Most of them jsut know the puppet. But that's off topic. Is Ghostface instantly recognizable? I'm pretty sure he is; moreso then Jigsaw, at least. If it's the costume that people recognize, so what? As long as he's famous. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's the costume that people recognize, not the characters. And the costume is certainly not a character; most people don't recognize the characters behind the mask, too. Plus, I think more people call it Scream, just like people call Kayako The Grudge. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the argument should really be over what Ghostface is. Its iconic, and in fact symbolic, of the horror genre, as it is almost universally recognized, even if the recognizer (yes, I know that's not a word) does not recognize it for what it really is. Yaksar (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think it's very encyclopedic to have an inanimate object on the list. It becomes a slippery slope and will encourage people to add other iconic horror inanimate objects. Yeldarb68 (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhhhh.... It should be over what it is. Someone once asked if the Amityville House was an icon, but it doesn't qualify to be in the template because it's not a character. — Enter Movie (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So if it's been aknowledged as an inamimate object, why is it still there? What's next, the costumes from Urban Legend? Yeldarb68 (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I thought I would get someone mad if I took it off. You have to reach an agreement before you suddenly delete someone. — Enter Movie (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Fisherman (I Know What You Did Last Summer)

His costume is pretty famous. So if we are aknowledging the Scream costume, why not the Fisherman? Yeldarb68 (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. The only well known part about him is the hook. --142.165.197.250 (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think his outfit is pretty well known. Yeldarb68 (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No he isn't. Go ask someone on the street if they know "The Fisherman." They'll never say it's the bad guy from I Know What You Did Last Summer. Plus, you forgot universally iconic. Most Japanese people will barely recognize him. — Enter Movie (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Bateman

I believe that Patrick Bateman should be considered for inclusion in that box.--68.149.181.145 19:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, man, but Patick is just not universally iconic. The film just made $34,266,564. — Enter Movie 23:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I figured that would be the response, just thought I'd try. That movie and performance IS awesome, IMO. --68.149.181.145 14:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Kayako, Sadako and Candyman

• Candyman (film)
• The Grudge

Would these two qualify? Marasama 09:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. Characters on the template have to be universally iconic. — Enter Movie 12:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As much as I love Kayako, I agree that she is not iconic enough as a whole. Neither is Sadako from the Ring (I know you didn't bring it up, but I am). I think Sadako is more well-known than Kayako, but only slightly more- but if one goes up the other should go up too.

Candyman? He's really creepy, a great horror character, but I still think no on this too. I like all of the mentioned movies in this section, but I agree that they are not iconic enough. Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Jigsaw Killer

How is Jigsaw Killer iconic? I move that he be removed from the list. --Arperry 00:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jigsaw is iconic in the same way Leatherface was iconic.He obviously has some major problems but at the same time you have to sympathise with him.Jigsaw has to stay.Its his voice and his cynicism.He is the biggest horror character since the Millennium. In Saw 2 he was hooked to multiple iv's and he was still creepy.He has to stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.120.182 (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The characters on the template have to be universally iconic. Jigsaw was agreed that he was not universally iconic because people think he wouldn't be recognized if you went to other non-English-speaking countries and that it's too early to tell if he's iconic enough. Maybe if we wait a little longer, he might be on the template. — Enter Movie 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the SAW films are the most profitable horror movies ever, I think Jigsaw should definitely be on that list. It's not a question of whether you like him or not, but whether he is iconic. So put your biases aside. Yes or no, has his "I want to play a game?", become iconic or not? Has his reverse bear trap and such become iconic or not? His puppet, iconic or not? Remember, I am not asking if you liked him, but if he's become memorable. And with SAW 5 and SAW 6 on their way, I would definitely say that Jigsaw should be on this list. From SAW part one he was labelled as the next great horror icon, the next Freddy and so forth. So even the critics have aknowledged that even if they didn't like him (because critics are more objective). So add him. Now.

"because people think he wouldn't be recognized if you went to other non-English-speaking countries and that it's too early to tell if he's iconic enough."

- Which non-English speaking country? How many have you actually been to? And you asked them whether they recognised Jigsaw or knew of SAW? I doubt that. Let's get realistic here. SAW would definitely be recognised in non-English speaking countries. How do you think they are willing to make a SAW 6? Because these films are popular world wide. The statistics speak louder than your opinion as to whether Jigsaw is iconic or not. Yeldarb68 (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would consider him iconic too. I mean, the Saw films have made over $200 million in the foriegn market. — Enter Movie (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I find to be the main problem with having Jigsaw on the list. Yes, the Saw movies are well known and yes, many people could explain the movie's premise. But as for the character itself, I don't find him to be that easily recognizable. Think about ghostface. A lot of people may have no clue who he is or what he is from, but they will still recognize him, whether from halloween costumes or from Scary Movie. It is a character that has truly become recognized. Jigsaw, on the other hand, has not. I would be all for having Saw on a list of iconic horror movies, but I am entirely against having Jigsaw on this list.
-Yaksar (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Halloween costumes or from Scary Movie....ok those are just parodies or have nothing to do with Horror. If you show people Jigsaw's Puppet Billy, They say its Jigsaw because he uses his bloody puppet to talk to his victims with before they are put through their tests to determine if they die or not. Your defense is not totally strong enough to say he is not strong enough, you are just using what others say as ur bases. If you look at Parodies like Attack of the Show parody of Saw, they have a parody of the puppet billy, Saw fan's obviously know its Billy parody wise, people who know little of saw know it's Jigsaw, BUT all together they know its saw and Jigsaw is the main villain, Same as Scary Movie 4 with the 2 puppets that look like billy. Off the spot Saw parody and obviously the Jigsaw killer.

Seeing that Jigsaw was killed off in Saw 3 doesn't mean he will not be in the next 3 movies coming up, it has been stated he WILL be in the next trilogy as you saw in Saw 4 and still partly will be a main villain though from the grave. Ironic I can think so, seeing if a villian who is dead WHO can not come back from the grave like the others who are listed still do can still kill. Even if he doesn't do it himself, he did in a point of view still kill them. Killing someone is not always u killing them with a knife in your hand, you can still kill someone using a trip mine right? think of him like that but using more complicated ways and meaning ways of killing as the traps do reflect on the victims reason of being in the trap in the first place. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 21:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I like attack of the show, but I would hardly consider it to make anything iconic. And most people shown the doll would probably just say its from Saw. Hey, that's another good point. Tthe other movies are recognized for the character (Freddy, Jason, Dracula, etc.). Saw is recognized for its traps. Yaksar (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No....If you show the Angel Trap or the Reverse bear trap from the series to a random person, they will never recognize what movie its from, the doll it self also has been in Dead Silence and Death Sentence as graffiti. But if you are talking about the Bathroom trap then thats a different story seeing its the only trap in parodies and the rest was made up mostly but before the bathroom trap you still have the doll Billy who represents Jigsaw hands down no matter what. For recognizing the character itself. The actual being, Jigsaw mostly lives his character through his doll than himself if you watch the movies he himself around others is mostly compassionate and etc. but with is doll around his personality changes as he is trying to get people to "applicate life" and what he does around people is to talk to them face to face what his beliefs are but with the doll is like a death sentence. Get what I mean. He doesn't have to physically kill people but he can do it mentally and use what he built to actually kill. And before you bring this into it, his trap ARE escapable BUT in horror movies if someone could avoid a small thing they wont get killed like in the 13th movies....just don't go Crystal Lake Period, or don't go in that door and you won't die. In saw do what the doll says in the traps and you will be alive with a "few" xD scratches. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 01:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Using a costume or a tool as a method of concealing one's identity does not take away from any horror character. So the fact that Jigsaw communicated with audio tapes, a puppet and abducted people wearing a pig's mask costume isn't all that different from other horror villains that used whatever method to hide their identity from their victims. As for Jigsaw simply being thought of as SAW and people not knowing his name directly? Sorry, but most people don't know Michael and Jason's name. Sure horror fans do, but horror fans also know 'Jigsaw'. The wider audiences probably don't know Michael and Jason by name but recognise them by other means. Same with Jigsaw. In terms of traps, I think ONLY the reverse bear trap is the iconic one. It appeared in so many promotions of the first film, and was reshown in the sequels. But this concerns the Amanda character moreso. I know so many people that say they will never watch any SAW movie because the posters of Amanda in the reverse bear trap alone scared them (on that note, careful with suggestions that the traps are iconic, you will encourage SAW fans to suggest adding Amanda Young and others to this list too). Nevertheless, Jigsaw's traps represent his unique M.O. which is a huge part of his personality. Of course the reverse bear trap alone isn't enough - but in combination with his memorable twist at the end of SAW 1, his puppet, his infamous quotes, his voice, his M.O. and stated intentions make him a memorable and well-known horror icon. The only reason why Jigsaw is being debated so much is because he is the most recent. While there have been four SAW movies REMEMBER this has been done in just four years- a quick rise in recognition which will only increase. Yeldarb68 (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys have all completely missed the point. I'm not saying he's not iconic because he doesn't kill people. I'm not saying he's not iconic because he uses a doll. I'm saying he's not iconic because he's not the first thing people identify the movie with. Not everyone may know that the villain in Friday the 13th is name Jason, but they do know he's the scary guy in the hockey mask. Psycho? People think of "that guy with the knife." But Saw, people think of the traps. Not the doll, not the villain, but the traps.
By the way, I'm not saying any particular traps are significant. Just the concept of people being subjected to them.Yaksar (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Even then, people remember the traps as the victims being explained "rules" for them. The puppet appeared in several of these for that purpose, including in Amanda's reverse bear trap, which is arguably the most iconic trap of the entire franchise. These have included audio voice recordings, video of puppet with Jigsaw's voice, and other such from Jigsaw, which have included: "I call you unworthy of the life that you've been given, of the body that you possess", "You are dead, dead on the inside", "Those who don't appreciate life do not deserve life", "How much blood would you shed to stay alive?", "If you want to live, you'll have to cut yourself again", "Oh yes, there will be blood...", "Suffering? You haven't seen anything yet." , "Hello Mark... Paul... Amanda... Zep... Dr. Gordon... Adam... I want to play a game." ------> It is those kind of messages from Jigsaw during the traps that make the traps all about him and his character. Of course, the specific quotes are not remembered by all, but the general jist of it is. There has not been a single trap in which instructions from Jigsaw's voice were not given. "I want to play a game", is especially iconic. Yet even regardless of all that, SAW II was the most watched of all the SAW movies apparently, and that one exposed the Jigsaw character in person the most. So Jigsaw himself, by those statistics, would indicate that people would know of the person as well anyhow.

But if you admit that the film is iconic, and you are suggesting that the traps are the most iconic, are you then suggesting that the Traps be placed in this list? I would be against the list of traps being linked. Yeldarb68 (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm simply saying that the traps are what is remembered most about the movie. And also, most people don't think "oh, that's the movie where people are put into painful traps and then read a message. Face it, the movie is not symbolized by the villain.Yaksar (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's symbolised by the villain. The traps are escapable. They are designed by a terminally ill person who is claiming to be doing those things to people to help them appreciate their lives and make them better people. They are in a trap to begin with because of Jigsaw's perception that they are flawed (viewer's know this) and the traps themselves reflect his beliefs as to what characteristics he dislikes (drugs- needle pit, suicidal people - razor wire trap, etc). But really, are you suggesting that the list of traps be placed on this template instead of Jigsaw? Yeldarb68 (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No. The traps symbolize the movie, but really are not iconic of the genre in general.Yaksar (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

But in your opening post on this topic you aknowledged that Saw is "well known". So you are implying that the list of traps is the most iconic of a well known and thus iconic horor franchise, are you not? Yeldarb68 (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Go figure.
Just kidding. But in all seriousness, yes they do symbolize this movie, and yes, the movie is significant, but they are not significant enough to be on the list. Think about it. Does it really make sense for them to be there?Yaksar (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Inanimate objects should not be listed, so I say no to the list of Saw traps being on this list. Yeldarb68 (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. But I don't feel that applies to ghostface, as it truly was a character, whether or not it was "played" by different people. Yaksar (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a costume not a character. And when people click on the Jigsaw link, if they don't already know him, they will think "Oh the SAW guy, of course." Same with Jason and Michael with their respective films, people would not know them but remember them when they click on their links and see what movie they are from. But with Ghostface, it's simply not a character. I'd prefer to see Sidney Prescott on the list. 121.216.112.200 (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what people mean by the costume in Ghostface... I mean, the most recognizable thing about Jason is the mask. And besides, the "Hello, Sydney..." and "What's your favourite scary movie" lines are pretty well known... I don't really understand the arguement. If you just show one of the killers from Scream, they probably wouldn't know it's Ghostface, but I think if you showed someone a picture of Tobin Bell, they wouldn't know he's Jigsaw. --142.165.197.250 (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC) (Yeah, that's Plasma Twa 2 there...)

Yeah, but Jigsaw is Jigsaw. Jason was Jason (he didn't even get the costume until much later on). Ghostface is five different people all completely different. While Billy Loomis was obsessed with horror movies, Mrs. Loomis didn't care at all about them. And this 'Ghostface character' doesn't exist. In Scream 3 it also had the voice of a strange woman (Cotton's death), the voice of Sidney herself, Cotton, and other people's voices. So it didn't have a strict character with it. Can't you see the difference?

As for Jigsaw and iconic? Here from Jigsaw's wiki page:

"As early as October 2005, an interviewer for IGN was willing to describe the Jigsaw Killer as "the next Freddy" in terms of iconic status as a modern horror film character. A review of Saw II in the San Francisco Chronicle praised Tobin Bell and Jigsaw as being "more terrifying than the movie villains in Hollywood's last five horror films put together -- even though he's in a wheelchair and hooked up to multiple IVs."

Despite the mystery of the character's identity created by the filmmakers in Saw, Bell's depiction of Jigsaw was used in promotional posters for Saw III and Saw IV.[12][13] Action figures of Jigsaw have also been produced by the National Entertainment Collectibles Association."

Sounds iconic to me.

Yeldarb68 (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Who says a villain can't be played by multiple characters?Yaksar (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody. But are the five characters behind the Ghostface costume iconic? No. — Enter Movie (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

But the overall character is.Yaksar (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally, someone has come up with a good explanation. Good job, man. — Enter Movie (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic: Should Jigsaw be on the template? — Enter Movie (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Amanda Young

Amanda in the Jaw Splitter.

Is this image of her a horror icon or not? Even people who haven't seen any SAW movies tell me that they never watch a SAW movie because this image scared them that much. Since the traps are so infamous, and she appears in the most iconic one of them all, which was even the SAW poster, perhaps she should be an icon too? Besides which, she had a strong impact on all Saw movies too. And her Pig mask costume is pretty well-known. She is definitely an infamous character. The most horrific icon of Stockholm Syndrome. Perhaps Jigsaw and Amanda should be together like:

The Aliens • Norman Bates • Chucky • Ghostface • Jigsaw & Amanda Young • Freddy Krueger • Leatherface • Hannibal Lecter • The Living Dead • Michael Myers • Pinhead • Jason Voorhees • Ash Williams

Yeldarb68 (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Amanda can hardly bee consider iconic. If someone hadn't seen the film there would be almost no chance of them recognizing her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaksar (talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the people I know who haven't seen it recognise her from that image alone. Yeldarb68 (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Jisaw alone is already iconic, but Amanda is not. I doubt people will know her in other non-English-speaking countries. They can't be iconic just from a picture; you also have to know who the character is. — Enter Movie (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Before we get into future discussion for anyone who watched Saw 4 as of Amanda, Hoffman will soon be suggested as an ironic character as the series goes on seeing in he has the role exactly like Amanda, Jigsaw's apprentice. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 16:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoffman? Yuck! If this is going to lead to Hoffman suggestions, then I officially withdraw my Amanda suggestion. Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL well lets see when Saw V and Saw VI comes out and see what others post. I go against it myself as Amanda seeing Jigsaw is the Mentor of both. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 23:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ash Williams

Why do people keep removing Ash Williams from the list? He is one of the most iconic, most quoted characters in horror movie history. You can argue that the 3rd movie of the Evil Dead series Army of Darkness is not a horror movie but the first two are direct horror zombie films (with some elements of black comedy, not unlike Freddy). The list is not restricted to villains, if you notice its called "Iconic CHARACTERS of Horror Cinema" and Ash Williams fits every aspect of that list. Otherwise why would there be so many spin off things about him and the Evil Dead movies? (Video games, comic books, not to mention the fact that he was almost going to be in the Freddy Vs. Jason sequel entitled Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash)

Don't say anything like "He's just a lead hero" cause the movies are made to feature him and his fan base is humongous. Name one other "lead hero" of horror movies that is considered so powerful and amazing to the masses?

I'm putting him back on the list, if you take him off please say RIGHT HERE why you did instead of deleting it without reason. --74.135.37.245 06:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the previous archive?--$UIT 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We figured that he wasn't iconic enough. To be on this template, a character needs to be a cinema icon, like Micheal or Jason, or they can be a character that has been imitated endlessly and/or as become the definite version of that character (Like Karloff's Frankenstein). It was agreed upon that characters like Jigsaw, Sadako, and Ash were not universally iconic. Popular, maybe, but not iconic. --Plasma Twa 2 22:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case then why isn't Godzilla on there? I went through the archives and that discussion was never really resolved.--Anguirus111 04:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Godzilla was considered more of a science-fiction character. — Enter Movie 23:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing for me is that he isn't the villain. I thought the focus here were the villains - iconic as being 'creepy' and such. Or does this template include the good guys of horror movies too? Yeldarb68 (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, good guys and protagonists can be on the template too, as long as they are iconic. — Enter Movie (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So is Ash supposed to stay? I don't believe that we have come to a consensus.Yaksar (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A consensus was reached a long time ago. But you may explain why he should be on the template. If it's good enough to change people's perspective about his status, then he might be on the template. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well its just that a consensus may have been reached in the past, but as of now there seems to be disagreement. Personally, I'm all for having him on the list. He really is the persona of the zombie killer.Yaksar (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you need to explain how and why he's iconic. I mean, he can't just be iconic because an amount of people think he's iconic. — Enter Movie (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The good guys in horror movies

It has been discussed as to whether good guys should be on this list. I personally think it should be restricted to the scary characters - in other words the villains - their characters being infamous for being horrific. But if good guys should be on the list then I think Carolanne from Poltergeist should be added. And Ghostface should be replaced by Sidney Prescott - because Ghostface is a costume not a character. But this becomes a slippery slope as people will start wanting to add Laurie from Halloween, Nancy from Nightmare on Elm Street, and so on. This is why I think the list should be restricted to the horrific characters - that is the villains. Yeldarb68 (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that you mention it... Why isn't Laurie on the template? That's... pretty weird to me... --142.165.197.250 (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Those characters aren't iconic. You guys actually think Laurie, Sydney, Nancy, etc. are universally iconic? If you go ask people what Halloween or Scream is, they'll say "It's that movie with the murderer that kills people." They won't care about the final girls because the fear is in the villians. — Enter Movie (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No. But I think Carolanne should definitely be added. She's definitely iconic I would think. The antagonist of the memorable and iconic Poltergeist trilogy- she was more memorable than the villain by far.

"They're here..."

Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just checked, Carolanne doesn't even have her own wiki article... So yeah. But someone could always write one, eh? lol. But I seriously thought she was a strong horror icon. Oh well. Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Regan MacNeil and Pennywise the Clown

These two characters are iconic in horror films. Why are they not listed in here? Lord Opeth 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we agreed that the characters on this template had to be universally iconic, meaning that he/she/it should be known to Mexico, Japan, China, Argentina, etc. and not just English-speaking countries. Somebody said that even though The Exorcist is very well-known doesn't mean Pazuzu's iconic. Pennywise is automatically not fit for this template because this template's for Iconic Horror Characters In Cinema. It is a made-for-TV film. — Enter Movie 22:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Universally Iconic

Ok define universally iconic characters because all I see are Horror characters that have magical capabilities that can come back to life latter on in the series to make a new film. The Jigsaw killer is universally iconic seeing Saw IV released all over the world and is known in Mexico and Japan because of X Japan's exclusive track dedicated to the film that will get people over there to watch. Also most characters are slasher film characters. But as others they are mostly inhumane if we speak like the Alien or etc. We need characters who actually are more human like Horror icons on the list. Its just a request. Seeing most of the Icons on here use supernatural or special capabilities to help them kill. Does the Leperchan counts as one? You see everyone begging to make a Chucky vs the Leperchan movie a few months ago on fan boards. He obviously is ironic to the little people --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 08:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A movie ebing released all over the world does not mean a character is iconic (See The Exorcist). Your argument of the whole template being made up of supernatural or slasher characters is not valid. If you can find some credible human horror icons, go ahead and suggest them. Currently there are three humans on the template: Ghostface, Hannibal Lecter and Norman Bates Jason, Freddy, and etc. are on the list because they are iconic. If slasher films are the horror movies that are the most well known, then so be it. We can't change that. And the Leprechaun being suggested for a Vs. Chucky movie isn't good enough. There was actual talks of a Jason Vs. Freddy Vs. Ash movie, but it was decided that wasn't good enough criteria. --Plasma Twa 2 02:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well instead of Icons why not Horror Icon Series or something This template is just causing problems in the whole Horror fan based universe. Getting others upset seeing that a character is not on here b/c of a stupid reason. What is the definition of Ironic by the way. Someone knowing something in the story while someone expected something else. Most horror movies ARE like that and most icons not on here deserve to be on here cause they are "IRONIC" slasher icons....how are they Ironic? They walk around knife in hand. Jason cant even talk and just kill, Not Ironic story wise but maybe suspense wise. Movies that DO have a story to them can't be on a list cause they film focuses on the story of the film more than senseless killing....that doesn't make to much sense. Hey Go add Victor Crowley from Hatchet while at it but I can see what you guys are going to say.

Back then Movies in the 80's which are most Icons are from only just kill and there franchise only made so small of amount of money. Late 90's to the 2000's Horror films now Generate about 80 Million or Above average unlike in the 80's like Friday or Nightmare it took about 3-4 films to make as much as one film makes today. So It could kill ALL of the Arguments and the confusion IF the template was broken down to Era's or something cause Jason and Freddy is not a Modern at the moment, they were the 80's 90's modern. No movies had come out for them every since 2002 - 2003 and its about 2008. At the Moment Films that should be recognized or as in Icons Might be Jigsaw or the Houndcorp from Hostel or Alien or Predator seeing a new AvP is coming this year. Also the Icons from the Ring and the Grudge seeing the Grudge is going to it's 3rd film. Seeing these Films are to few compared to the older films They DO gross more than the older films. Also I Can Say Michael Myers can be Modern as a New movie was released the last 5-10 years not 30-20 years ago. Also I might be wrong on the release times BUT you do get my point.

Like the Classic Icons there needs a cut off date to where the Icons are actually "MODERN" then have areas like Icons of the 80's then 90's then the 2000's(Modern) then add the older Icons IF upon remake releases, like Jason as another Friday the 13th film is under works Right now. Get the Idea. This Template is getting people pissed and coming here suggesting then turned down just because of stupid made up reasons. Template Said Horror Icons not anything about Universally Ironic Horror Icons --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 08:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A universally horror icon is one that is "somebody or something widely or uncritically admired all over the world." Ironic means "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning." Your point of saying that icons with knives in their hands doesn't make any sense. They're icons because they widely-known; if go walk down a street and hold up a picture of Jason Voorhees in front of a guy and asked who that was, I'm sure he'd recognized him first rather than the Houndcorp or something like that. Hatchet only made a little amount of money compared to the other movies the icons are in, so Victor doesn't qualify.

Movies back then made so little money 'cause movie tickets costed cheaper. A movie making $10 million back then would be considered "a movie making alot of money." Just adjust the film gross into inflation, then a 80's film will look like it made alot of money; I mean, even Rush Hour 3 made more money than Gone with the Wind without inflation-adjustment. Freddy and Jason are modern because they're last film was just released in the 21st century with a F13 remake and a NOES prequel coming up. I would like to see Norman Bates in the classic section, though. Predator was considered more of a science-fiction/action character. Alien actually scared audiences back then, so that's why it's on the template.

And I actually want Jigsaw on the template; I think he's been around enough to be in it with another two films coming up. I'm not sure about Samara or Kayako (they're pretty cool and all), so I'll just let someone argue with that. — Enter Movie 14:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we are living in the era of movie download, and it is arguably more difficult to profit from film-making than it was before counter to your claims. Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Damien and Carrie

Both Damien Thorn from The Omen and Carrie White from Carrie are iconic horror movie villains. Both of them are from famous books and films. Both are well known in the horror movie world. Both are common figures in popular culture. I think they should be considered for the list.

Also mentionworthy is Alex (A Clockwork Orange). I'm not sure if you would call it a horror movie exactly, but he is without question well known. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Alex qualifies. A Clockwork Orange is a strange and (to some) disturbing movie, but I have never heard it been called a horror movie. and I'm not sure if there was a vote or not to put Damien on, because I think I remeber something like that. I agree that Carrie should be on, though. While she's originally a character from a novel, I think the movie version of the character is famous enough to qualify her.

And while we're on the topic of adding new characters, I think I might as well bring up Jack Torrance. Jack Nicholson's portrayal is about as iconic as they get for a horror movie. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Any objections, anyone? --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you sound mad, man. No offense, but I think you're too biased, just because your favorite character is not on the template. I don't mind Jack T., but Ash has been discussed before. Since the releasing of Saw IV, the Saw series has made over $515,667,093 worldwide as of November 20th, $230,973,517 of which were grossed outside of America, proving that people all over the world also watch Saw and know who Jigsaw is. Like someone has mentioned before, even a Japanese band did the ending theme for Saw IV, once again, proving that Saw is known all over the world. The Saw cast and crew also promoted their film is Australia (you can see it on the special features of Saw II). Critics have praised Jigsaw as the next horror icon. Two more Saw sequels are ready to be made. I mean, what more do I need to explain? — Enter Movie (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure how much money should contribute to this. That's kind of a bad policy. The Exorcist grossed $400 million worldwide - if it's adjusted for inflation it's the highest grossing R-rated movie of all time - but we agreed Pazuzu wasn't iconic (There could be a case for Regan, though. I'm pretty sure people can recognize the picture of her when she's possessed). I don't think if you go up to someone and ask him to name a bunch of horror movie characters, that he'll say Jigsaw. He'll say Jason, Freddy, Micheal, Chucky, etc. Maybe a few will say Jigsaw, and a few less will say Ash. Ash really seems to be on the borderline, here... We have all the undisputed horror icons, but after that it's a constant arguement over who gets put on the template. Some people want Jigsaw, some people want Ash, some people want the Predator, etc. They're all well known, so I see no reason to not include them all. We have added all the characters that anyone can recognize (Like Jason, who is a pop culture icon) and now we're getting into the characters that are more well known to horror fans.

And could you reply to the actual subject? Should Carrie and Jack be on the template? I can see how Jack may not be iconic, but I'm pretty sure Carrie is. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As of the Leprechaun in my suggestion seeing a 7th film is a possibility seeing that Darren Lynn Bousman had the 7th films plot in mind and has plan on taking up directing it after finishing Repo! The Genetic Opera film and possibly a side project when working on Saw V or VI. If not there has been already 6 films on the Icon himself. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 23:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I'll reply on the next subject. I don't see how Carrie is iconic. Jack is way more iconic than her. Jack Nicolson's "Heeeere's Johnny" line is one of the most memorable lines in cinematic history, and The Shining is considered one of scariest horror films and one of Stephen King's best novels.

Leprechaun is questionable, seeing as how the series went downhill after Leprechaun 4. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I say definitely yes to Damien. I say maybe for Carrie. Yeldarb68 (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Death (Final Destination)

A friend of mine says its become iconic. I personally think a definite no to this. But since there are differing opinions on 'death' I thought it could be raised for discussion nonetheless. Yeldarb68 (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Death is a supernatural force. It's not a character. — Enter Movie (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Did Death even appear in the movies? Is there a Wiki page specifically for Death (Final Destination)? Apparently not... --142.165.197.250 (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

LoL. true. But in my opening comment on this subject I said I was opposed to the idea. But thought I would mention it just because someone I know thought it has become iconic. Yeldarb68 (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

The classic representation of duality. Anyone agree that they should be on the list?Yaksar (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

They were on the list, but they were removed for some reason... I think there was a vote. --142.165.197.250 (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course they should be on the list. And I think they were removed because one individual didn't like it. But really characters should not be removed without a conclusion to a debate about them. It's just arrogant and egotistical to remove a character without reaching the conclusion of a debate. Yeldarb68 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they were removed from the template because they weren't universally iconic. I didn't know that character until someone mentioned he was in Van Helsing. It's just common sense that if you go walk to your neighbors' houses and asked them who he was, they'll say no. — Enter Movie (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Don't know. Somehow I just know this character, but the thing is I don't know how I know him. I've never ever seen the character portrayed in a movie, yet I still know of him... Oh I remember now lol, from those Warner Bros. cartoons - the nice doctor who after taking some chemicals becomes a monster that chased the Sylvester cat, becoming normal, then monster again, normal again, monster again (back and forth). That was a representation of that character. LoL, now I remember how I know of the character. Maybe there are others like me for whom they know of the iconic character because of the Warner Bros. portrayal of it? Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

He has been in the movie The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen as I seen from wiki it has stated has been in 123 film other films listed on his profile or sorta his profile. Character Film Adaptions --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 18:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Maybe very few people have seen the movie or read the actual book, but everyone knows who he is.Yaksar (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but is he well known from horror movies? He is definetely well known, but I'm wondering if it's from the books or the horror movies. And, come to think of it, how many movies has he been in are actual horror movies? I know there is a few, but there are also a couple comedies and everything in there. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the original movies (I believe the first was from 1920) were classic horror films. And he has had an undeniable impact on the horror genre. Think about all of the times a scientist makes a potion (or does an experiment) and turns into a monster. All of that is based of Jekyll and Hyde. Yaksar (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

All because he influences people doesn't mean he's an icon. Take Kool DJ Herc and Grandmaster Flash for example. They may have influenced and created the hip hop music genre, but Jay-Z, LL Cool J, and 50 Cent are way more recognizable and iconic than them. — Enter Movie (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but when you see a movie, show, or whatever with a scientist transforming himself into a beast it isn't just influenced by Jekyll and Hyde. It's is Jekyll and Hyde's story in a different form. Yaksar (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The Hulk may be influenced by it, but it still isn't Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Every movie with a scientist creating a monster out of reanimated dead limbs and body parts isn't Frankenstein either, but they are all truly a retelling of the original story. Also, I'm surprised you hadn't heard of J&H. I feel like its one of the few stories that a neighbor actually would recognize right away.Yaksar (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)+

Actually, I have heard of them. I even have the book, but haven't read it yet. But it's not the story that needs to be iconic, it's the character. I mean, I'm sure we all know of that story, but do people really know it's from Robert Louis Stevenson's book? — Enter Movie (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the story is of Jekyll's transformation into Hyde, hence the icon being Dr Jekyll/Mr. HydeYaksar (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The story may be icoic, but the character is not. I bet that if you tell someone that if they've ever heard of a story of a scientist transforming into a beast, he/she would say the Hulk. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are barley iconic. — Enter Movie (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)