Jump to content

Talk:List of natural horror films

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Schiaparellist (talk | contribs) at 01:14, 16 October 2021 (→clarifying question on Tremors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Natural horror should have its own main page

I believe the subgenre of natural horror should have its main page, since this is only a list of films belonging to this subgenre. Many subgenres have their own pages on this wiki. 73.235.91.43 (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Hi guys. Sorry about not being able to edit this post very well, I'm a bit new to this. I would just like to inform the maker of this page has missed out a few movies, and I would like to contribute, but as I said, I'm not very good at all about editing, plus, I'm not sure if some of them are plausible. (Whoever made the page, you guys did a really fantastic job by the way)

Um, first off is a movie called Maneater, which can be seen here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0846713/ Which is a movie about a Bengal tiger.

Eye of the Beast, which is an awesome movie about an octopus, which I think is mollusk, but I'm not sure. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0867286/

Now, sorry about this last one, because i don't the exact name, but it's something similar to "Into the Web". It's a movie about poisonous spiders. Sorry, I don't have a link to this one.

But yeah, that's it. Again, this is a great page, so good job to whoever did it, and I hope my additions are helpful, and easy to put up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclone of despair (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why were my entries removed sure they weren't very well known but they were real films and I was stating facts173.18.28.177 (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-horror subgenre

I thought it would be a good idea to have a reference for the term "eco-horror". Unfortunately the most reliable one I have found so far says "Unlike most horror films these movies aren't fiction, they are serious documentaries tackling the big issues of our time. But the message is still: Be afraid."

  • Ford, Matt (22 October 2008). "Eco-horror films shocking us into action". CNN. Retrieved 28 August 2011.

The list currently only has fiction films as far as I can see, so we need one or more reliable references to justify its current contents or the other use of "eco-horror" and one or more sections for the documentary films referred to in the CNN article. --Mirokado (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to reflect this reference and will continue to look for references for the fictional use of eco-horror or natural horror. Contributions from other editors welcome, naturally. We need to find reliable sources which predate the creation of this article: there are of course lots of copies of the unsourced wikipedia content which illustrates the importance of providing reliable sources at the time content is added. --Mirokado (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found some refs clarifying the use of the term eco-horror. It is clear that many if not most of the films in this list are categorised as natural horror by, for example, Allrovi. I will rename the list accordingly, split off the documentaries to a new list with the old name, crosslink the two lists and do any more immediate tidying up. I will then remove the inuse tags. A second stage of editing can move or copy appropriate films from the natural horror list to a new eco-horror list fiction section. --Mirokado (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The move and split are now complete. The section for fictional eco-horror films is currently empty. The list of eco-horror films is fully referenced. Please provide completed inline references for every content addition to maintain its quality. When adding to the list please note the quality requirements stated in the comment for each section. Those requirements can of course evolve like anything else with consensus but I will "probably" remove list entries which do not conform to the requirement when they are created. --Mirokado (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing that three different subarticles be merged into this one; List of killer snake films, List of killer shark films, and List of killer crocodile films. The topic of killer animal films is better and more expansively covered in this article than any of the others. I don’t quite see the value of listing them with each animal assigned their own individual pages, except to be used as redirects. --Morgan Hauser (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the transfer. Not enough impact of these specific animals to warrant their individual lists. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support content is better served in a single article. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support There isn't enough of a difference between these genres to warrant separate articles. Zell Faze (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - shark films are a specific and notable topic/list on their own Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger Proposal Killer Insects

Similar to the above proposal, I think that killer insects should be added to this article based on the same logic. Zell Faze (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged that article along with the three proposed above. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allrovi is wrong.

What are being referred to as "natural horror films" have traditionally been called "eco horror" going back as far as I can remember. The documentaries being listed by wiki as "eco-horror" seem to be highjacking the name of that pre-existing subgenre. I don't know anything about editing wiki entries, but a simple google search of "eco horror" will turn up page after page of results for the more common use of "eco horror." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.124.69 (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit: http://twitchfilm.com/2008/07/twitch-o-meter-the-implacable-lightness-of-being-5-eco-horror-films-for-our.html http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/2008/06/cybersurfing-eco-horror/ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91485965

The preceding links are just 3 of the many, many references that predate the creation of the natural horror and eco-horror wiki pages and refer to the films wiki has categorized as "natural horror" as the more commonly used and accepted "eco-horror." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.124.69 (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have just seen this and will respond as time permits in the next few days. --Mirokado (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for some kind of response about this. I listed three citations, more than the one that was used to hijack the term "eco-horror." Everything on this page should be listed under eco-horror. What reminded me to even come and look again was seeing a former writer for Rue Morgue Magazine and the former editor of Fangoria (so someone that knows horror sub genres well) speaking about eco-horror using the established meaning it's had for decades now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD17:D380:3513:BC47:98D5:8267 (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolf movies

Should werewolf films be listed in the "Canines" section? --68.196.40.216 (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I recommended you ask that question on this talk page, I suppose I'll throw in my two cents due to a lack of other answers. Personally I don't think werewolf films should be included, as they tend to involve heavy supernatural elements, rather than mutation or other biological causes. –Matthew - (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to 24.184.132.160

You are continuously removing my edits to the article, even when doing so disregards WP:MOSLINK. I do not want to start an edit war, but I will be taking greater effort to improve the article and I ask that you discuss changes with me rather than simply reverting all of my work. Thank you. –Matthew - (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the title "natural horror"

As natural horror is a subgenre of horror films, it would be reasonable that the films listed in this article be of the horror genre. However, some of the films listed are not technically horror films. For example, Planet of the Apes is a science fiction film; Jurassic Park, a science fiction adventure film with horror elements; and In the Heart of the Sea, a historical survival drama.

Granted, a film genre is a subjective topic. Some people view Jaws as a horror film, while others, myself included, consider it a thriller. Basically, I'm questioning the article's title. Perhaps it should be renamed "List of killer animal films", though I believe it may have already had that name some time ago (plus that name does sound a bit juvenile).

It's just a bit odd to me that certain films are listed in an article with such a title. The Wikipedia page for "horror film" defines the genre as "seeking to elicit a negative emotional reaction from viewers by playing on the audience's primal fears". Therefore, having something like the kid-friendly Son of Godzilla appearing in a list of such a subgenre seems strange. –Matthew - (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i think they're listed because they feature killer animals in the same style as a "natural horror film". --24.184.132.160 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

I think that there should be an established criteria for the inclusion of films in this list, and that it should be approved by several editors. For example, should The Dark Crystal be included, as the Skeksis are reptile-bird hybrids? Should the film series of Tolkien's legendarium and Harry Potter be included for their creatures (e.g. Shelob, Aragog, etc.)? The list currently contains films featuring dragons, an Aztec god, and Bigfoot, to name a few. As these are either mythological or cryptozoological, where does the line cross in terms of being a "natural horror film"? –Matthew - (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. supernatural monsters shouldn't be included, only natural ones and mutations. However, I think Bigfoot counts as a natural creature, rather than supernatural --24.184.132.160 (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the article for Bigfoot defines it as "a mythological simian, ape, or hominid-like creature". It's also frequently considered to be a cryptid.

–Matthew - (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot is still not a supernatural entity. Cryptids are natural creatures that may or may not be real. --24.184.132.160 (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator removed the citations because they were unneeded

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_natural_horror_films&diff=prev&oldid=722075371 --67.81.107.101 (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone's able to find a policy that excludes lists from having citations, then that list should have citations. Other lists on Wikipedia have citations, and thus, consistency should win over someone simply saying "not needed". –Matthew - (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The administrators agreed to remove it, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=722077551#Is_IMDB_a_reliable_source.3F --67.81.107.101 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's just because the citations were from IMDb, which is generally never considered a reliable source (there's even an essay about it). The page still needs references, just not from IMDb, because IMDB isn't a reliable source. –Matthew - (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want citations, fine. Go through the previous revisions and get them yourself. I am not going through all that work again. --67.81.107.101 (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. It'll take a while, but I'll go ahead and start to organise a draft to update the page with later. –Matthew - (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't need to be re-written. just add the citations it used to have. --67.81.107.101 (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not unreasonable to request that a page has citations when it's something very specific, as WP:Source list does mention that a list should still need to be verifiable via sourcing. In this case it'd probably be a good idea to show sourcing to back up the claims that the movie has a mutated critter as its main protagonist. It'd also be a good idea to identify exactly what is considered to fall within this list. I'm somewhat surprised to see the Cloverfield monster on this list, given that it appears to be of extraterrestrial origins and as such, would not be something that I'd think of as a natural monster. If the decision is to include an extraterrestrial creature if it resembles an entity on earth, then that should be spelled out in the lead. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've protected the page for three days. This is not entirely an endorsement of the current version or the sourcing requirements - my last post was mostly to say that it's not an unreasonable request to ask for reliable sourcing. I'm going to tag MorbidEntree in this since I don't see where anyone has, although I would like to point out that MorbidEntree is not an admin. However that said, one does not need to be an admin to do edits on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Films with multiple natural antagonists

I noticed that the film Frogs is repeated a few times within the list, falling under the sections for amphibians, arachnids, birds, lizards, snakes, and turtles and tortoises. Perhaps films such as this should be included into a section for miscellaneous titles, or perhaps be listed under the section which best suits them (which, in this case, I think would likely be "amphibians"). –Matthew - (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be listed multiple times. I don't see a problem with it. --67.81.107.101 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "miscellaneous" section should be removed and those movies should be listed in multiple categories. --67.81.107.101 (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you propose that they should be listed in multiple categories? Adding them into the "miscellaneous" section shortens the number of repeated citations, and makes it easier anyhow to find citations to back up the films listed. It's also more concise and organised for readers. –Matthew - (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think citations are needed for Frogs and Day of the Animals since they have wikipedia pages. --67.81.107.101 (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am cross-listing King Kong (1933) in the "Dinosaurs" section, since the explorers do battle with numerous dinosaurs before they find the big guy. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of films featuring extraterrestrial antagonists

An argument has arose regarding whether or not films featuring extraterrestrial animal antagonists should be included. At present, such a factor is not within the inclusion criteria detailed in the article's lead sentence. The IP editor who has challenged this notion has disregarded my advice to hold a consensus on the issue, and so I've created the consensus meeting thusly. Here is my reasoning against extraterrestrial inclusion:

  • Oppose: Alien creatures should be reserved for the list of films featuring extraterrestrials. As the Cambridge Dictionary puts it, nature is "all the animals, plants, rocks, etc. in the world and all the features, forces, and processes that happen or exist independently of people". This does not include extraterrestrial life. Furthermore, there are no reliable sources that have been added to support extraterrestrials being a component of natural horror. –Matthew - (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: They are killer versions of real-life animals. They do qualify. They're monstrous versions of real-life animals, and thus fit the description. Also, some of the are the same as their real-life counterparts, like the dinosaurs from Planet of Dinosaurs and King Dinosaur. They are just natural creatures from other worlds. Like the arachnids from Starship Troopers. There's also no rule against having extraterrestrial life. --67.81.107.101 (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources listed in the article have all essentially supported the current criteria. Are there any sources you can find that include mention of films with extraterrestrial animal antagonists as "natural horror"? –Matthew - (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the more popular terms for "natural horror films" are killer animal movies or creature features. And yes, movies featuring extraterrestrial versions of animals are listed. Also, the most important part is not the monsters being "natural". For example, mutations are listed and they are not really "natural". The most important part is that they feature killer animals. --67.81.107.101 (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
also, aliens are technically natural creatures of other worlds. However, I do agree with you that movies like Cloverfield (which doesn't really feature a "monster" version of a real-life animal) should not qualify. --67.81.107.101 (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts over the article's lead

Welp, seeing as how I've just been called a "fuck face" (could you take a look at WP:NPA first?), this issue probably needs to be addressed. Every citation listed in the article discusses natural horror films with organisms as the primary or secondary antagonist. That's what differentiates something like Jaws, featuring a shark that clearly kills people, from something like Dracula, which happens to have bats in it. There's not a single source that cites Dracula or another movie of that description as being a natural horror film.

Furthermore, as the list includes films featuring killer plants, the lead should reflect that. In fact, now that I read it over more carefully, the lead should contain information beyond even that. At present, the films' antagonists are defined as "mutated beasts, carnivorous insects, and/or normally harmless animals turned into killers". What about Jaws? As great white sharks aren't harmless to humans, then Jaws wouldn't fit this criteria. Nor would its sequels, nor would 1925's The Lost World, nor would Piranha 3D, etc.

Considering film genres are subjective and that this article's inclusion criteria can be interpreted in several different ways, citations are the key to the list's reliability. The nature of the films in the list should be defined as clearly as possible. On what grounds would doing so be "unnecesarry"? If citations don't list natural horror films as being without primary natural antagonists, then why should we leave it up to interpretation? –Matthew - (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flying monkeys in THE WIZARD OF OZ?

Should the flying monkeys in The Wizard of Oz be listed? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were hardly 'natural.' Bkatcher (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed?

Is it reasonable to include films on this list simply because they have their own articles, or should they be required to have a citation as well? WP:LISTV favors the latter option, but I'm not keen on starting that level of clean-up if I'm going to hit a wall of opposition. Thanks for your thoughts. DonIago (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse removing the unsourced content. The WP:BURDEN is on KaijuFan4000 to restore the content with sources. Per WP:LSC, "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." This is definitely subjective. A film having a monstrous creature does not immediately equate it being a "natural horror film". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To add on, the more narrow a genre classification is, the less likely that a related list will capture all potentially related films. For the main genres, it is largely pretty easy to verify and source a film because many databases identify a film's main genre(s). However, something like "natural horror" is not going to pop up as often, and we should be wary of listing a film because we personally think it meets the definition. To use an example, survival film (which is both prose and list) has sourced listings and would probably be longer if we went with an I-call-it-as-I-see-it mentality. By using sources, we can point to something beyond the editors' own opinions for justification. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Doniago and Erik. Sometimes it is very obvious (such as with The Grey (film)), but there are many dubious entries such as The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and Leprechaun 4: In Space. Some of these entries may be sourceable through Allmovie's Natural horror category. Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I was threatened with a block the last time I reinstated the removal of the unsourced items, would one of you be willing to reinstate said removal, as I feel we have a reasonable consensus here and it's been a sufficient amount of time for other editors to weigh in? If not, I'm willing to do it again as long as I'll have your support if it goes badly for me. DonIago (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the restoration of unsourced content. I would support using Betty's source to re-include films with inline citations. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Erik. I concur with your assessment, and also hope that any editors opposed to the removal (KaijuFan or otherwise) will bring their concerns here. Time permitting (not today, maybe next week) I'll see if I can start digging into Betty's source. DonIago (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of removing all that content, it simply makes no sense. I support keeping the unsourced content, as citing sources seems incredibly redundant here. TurokSwe (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not redundant because WP:BURDEN requires that they are added when claims are challenged. Many of the entries on the list are extremely dubious: The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit are not "natural horror" films by any definition (they aren't even horror films for a start!), and something like The Monster Squad contains fantasy horror rather than natural horror. I even find entries such as The Fly and The Thing questionable too because they are highly speculative. With something like One Million Years BC it is questionable that it is even a horror film, and it is debatable whether its fantasy premise (cavemen and dinosaurs co-existing) disqualifies it even though dinosaurs are of the natural world. That is one film I could go either way on, which is why good sourcing is essential. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding calling cavemen and dinosaurs co-existing "fantasy", of course sources are not redundant, generally speaking, however in regards to an article such as this one sources are hardly necessary and precisely do seem redundant, and rather than remove most of the content (which clearly fits the bill) it would seem more reasonable to deal with every single movie separately. As far as entries like "Lord of the Rings" and "Monster Squad" goes, these clearly do not belong in this article. TurokSwe (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I rather agree with WP:LISTV that sources are necessary precisely to avoid debates over whether a film belongs in this article. DonIago (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological order

Some of the movies were listed alphabetically, some in release year. I've placed them all in chronological order under their subgenre. Bkatcher (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List /Criteria for inclusion?

This eems a very limited list, unless there are stricter grounds for inclusion than the description implies. Probably about half of The Asylum's output could go in here, for a start. Iapetus (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources that classify them thusly, I guess I'd be curious to hear an argument against inclusion. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like another page jealously guarded by an over-zealous 'owner'. I'll avoid.WisDom-UK (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding sourced content takes the article in the right direction, but adding unsourced content just creates a problem that has to be fixed down the line. I would have done the same as Doniago in his shoes. If you add back the titles with reliable sources I am sure there will not be a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. Thanks Betty! DonIago (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. 'Giant Spider Invasion' just shouts out rom-com. Best to avoid any confusion.WisDom-UK (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allmovie categorise it as "sci-fi horror", which is a different sub-genre. This is why sources are needed. Betty Logan (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
😂😂😂 lockdown laughsWisDom-UK (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tremors

I was going to add Tremors (film) because it's main antagonists are giant man-eating worms that travel underground, but it is technically a comedy. I'm soliciting opinions on its inclusion here. Thanks 47.137.185.72 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If sources are available which categorise it as "natural horror" then it should be added, otherwise it should be left out. Allmovie categorise it as a "creature" horror rather than a "natural" horror, which is a different genre. Betty Logan (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because this distinction has been made, should the parenthetical “(also known as creature features)” at the beginning of the page be removed? It implies that creature horror and natural horror are synonymous; moreover, the source [1] does not equate creature features and natural horror. If the parenthetical remains it follows logically that creature horror should be listed here, because there is no separate page for creature horror.--Schiaparellist (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla

I see there's been debate in the past as to what to include in this page, but I don't think a consensus has ever been reached. In regard to Godzilla, is it really reasonable to consider it a "natural horror" film? It's not even any specific animal in a mutated form, it's entirely fantastical. On the other hand, if it's pertinent, why only one title? If the original Godzilla is a fair inclusion, then all Godzilla films are. Multiple sections include sequels and/or list each entry of a franchise. Why not Godzilla? More so, why is Godzilla the only mentioned "dinosaur"? (Not even being one). What with an entire popular franchise being devoted to dinosaurs. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonable to include a film that is reliably sourced as a "natural horror", certainly as starting point in a discussion. While the creature may be "fantastical" in its depiction, the original film is allegorical as Vulture discusses here. Betty Logan (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park, Carnosaur and King Kong should be included and Godzilla should be removed

The movies "Jurassic Park" and "Carnosaur" should be included at "Dinosaurs", because they are actually Natural Horror movies antagonized by dinosaurs. And King Kong should be included at "primates", because it's about a giant ape who attacks people. Gabriel Rodrigues Loschiavo (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Films can be characterized in many different ways so will only be added if contributors are able to provide a WP:Reliable source that describes them as "natural horror". This isn't a matter of editorial opinion, it is a matter of WP:Verifiability. As for the first Godzilla, the accompanying source describes it as "natural horror", and this is further expanded on in the section above. If we removed it based on our own subjective opinion then that would constitute WP:Original research. Betty Logan (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_natural_horror_films&oldid=1050139324"