Because if you really annoyed them, they'd leave. Then we'd have no toilet paper. Right?
I really know nothing of vampires, werewolves, mummies, demons, and all those other "horror" creatures.

So, I get to start teaching the basics and midlin difficult stuff for Word and Excel soon. Hopefully I will get into the hang of it after teaching the lessons a few times so it will become more like second nature to teach them specifically. I have 4 lessons for each program, so I think I will try to convince my boss that we need to do 2 classes a week (one for each program) and get all of the lessons done each month. If there is a 5th week in the month, it could be for an intro into computers class to help people that really have no idea what they are doing.

Some people have been waiting a long time for these classes to be offered, and so I am happy to help, but most likely, they will be offered at a time where I am already scheduled to work, so I will most likely not get paid any more to teach these classes, but that just means not getting paid to do nothing during that time.

I can't say I've spent much time trying to sort films by strict genres. Part of it's laziness, no doubt, but the rest is in seeing how many critics (and many in the general public) get so entrenched in such labels that when there's something that mixes two or more of them they don't know what to do with it and seem to want to dismiss it as a failure at each of the genres. I don't want to become one of them.

All that said, it's interesting to try to tease out what each means to us. There's much out in the broad realm of horror that just feels as if it revulses me. I guess technically, or at least based on the reaction, that could be classed as "horror," but that doesn't feel quite right to me. In the end, whether or not I like a film will transcend the classification. I suffered through House of 1,000 Corpses, which ended in something approaching disgust as Rob Zombie is not only not interested in providing the catharsis of seeing these monsters get their comeuppance, he enjoys bringing the audience within striking distance of it only to turn it around and make the would-be rescuer another victim.

This can be done effectively as part of a story - Robert Farnsworth's sheriff role in Misery, for instance - but unless the monster has managed to charm me along the way I tend to insist it meet its end before the credits roll. The more the monster is driven by sadistic impulses -- as opposed to just being some monster acting mindlessly, for its protection and/or for food -- the more I insist on it if I'm to come away from the movie approving of it.

Can one have a successful Horror movie without suspense? I can see a Suspense film without real horror, but there has to be something on the line - fear of something or a loss of something - or else there's no emotional stake for us to feel any suspense over.

My attentions are being taken up by work, which is part of the reason I haven't been wading in far on topics.

Same here. I (and my group) mainly played Werewolf but crossed over with other groups of players that centered on other World of Darkness focuses. Glad none of my characters ever had to deal with a mummy directly. lol

I ran a World Of Darkness game based on the Hellboy universe for two years. We kind of lost track of the original rules and had morphed the game into something else by the end, but I enjoy that system.

Based on your paragraph above, I wonder what your views on Silence of the Lambs are. Billy was captured, but Hannibal went free at the resolution of the film. By your definition you couldn't approve of that film, if I am reading this correctly.

Just trying to get you to dig deeper into your definition or views on these films.

I always look at things a little differently. This is what I see when I watch Seven:

Niiiiiiiice! That sounds like fun. I really enjoyed WoD before they ruined it. lol

I would refer you to the "...unless the monster has managed to charm me along the way" part to cover Hannibal. He's a very engaging monster.

Now, had Buffalo Bill managed to escape, it would have been a different matter.

I've never seen it, but now I want to see it! It looks like a cooky, campy, romantic comedy!

You mean with the "Okay, we're ending the world and now you have to go buy all new source books" reboot?

Heheh. I hadn't seen that one before, but I do enjoy the re-cut and re-purposed trailers. The Scary Mary one's the classic I think of immediately, but I should take a little time and cruise around YouTube for what are almost certainly going to be many I haven't seen yet.

Bingo! Just didn't care about it after that point.

AD&D has been doing that to us for years, but it usually yielded something better (except for 2nd and 4th editions, in my opinion).

3.5 has flaws, but imho it is the smothest and deepest rping game system out there. Easy to alter.

From the "I Should Know This" file, and something I suppose I should just go search out in the rules or Rules Forum (probably finding it in one of the Beast Boy threads), but it's easier to just ask this group: What are the rules concerning theme team building regarding AEs and other pieces (such as Beast Boy) who transform?

John Jameson has the Avengers keyword, so if I put him on an Avengers team, does it still retain that theme when he transforms into Man-Wolf -- a character who doesn't have that keyword? I can't recall what was said about this with respect to Beast Boy, though it would seem bizarre if his becoming a green bear or dinosaur would suddenly break the Teen Titans theme. This leads me to think that the theme-ness is set with the starting build and doesn't become invalidated by those changes.

In the other direction, we have Bruce Banner, who doesn't have the Avengers keyword, while his alter ego does. So, if I start with Banner I can't build an Avengers team that follows keyword-driven theme team rules..?