No, let this not be the end of the conversation. Well sure, if you want to start with Hostel, then there isn't much of a trend. But that's a mistake, because Hostel is just when the term 'torture porn" CAME ABOUT...and the REASON it came out because of...guess what... a TREND! In fact, it's insulting for you to even pretend that Hostel is the first one. Going back to October 2004, here are some of the notable gorno movies...Saw, , High Tenstion, The Devil's Rejects, Chaos, Saw 2, Wolf Creek, Hostel, The Hills Have Eyes (I don't care that you don't count it...watch the rape scene or the immolation scene and try to deny it), Saw 3, Turistas (again, TRY to pretend it's not gorno), The Hills Have Eyes 2 (which I'm including just because it's the sequel, though I haven't seen it), Hostel 2 and Captivity. That's thirteen movies in less than three years, all but one of them were theatrical. That's MORE than one gorno movie in theatres every three months. And I'm not even counting things like House of Wax, which could easily fall into the category. This was a quick, off the top of my head list, and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch. Tell me a more prevalent trend than that. Please. I can't BELIEVE you can even PRETEND that there's no trend. You must be BLIND.

How could you even call any of it porn, there was no penetration! ;) Soft core torture porn at best, but I wouldn't call any of it by that name.

The so-called "torture porn" films mentioned (namely, the Saw series and 2 Hostel films) are mediocre, trite crap. Gore for gore's sake, with little attention paid to whether or not the movies are actually entertaining. Which, they're not. It'll only be a matter of time before Saw 9 hits theaters, but hopefully Eli Roth is bitter enough about the Hostel 2 workprint being pirated to not make anymore of them. Of course, we'll still have to deal with crap remakes, especially if Rob Zombie's Halloween makes any money. Mainstream horror is in a sad state, and I don't expect it to get any better anytime soon.

You people that call any Saw film torture films are all complete idiots, where is their any sexual content in any saw film other than a topless woman in saw 3? Did u even watch the damned movies? The hills have eyes does NOT count either, u are referring to one scene, and thats it.

correction "torture porn" films, my mistake for the post above.

Do you even realize what the term 'torture porn' refers to?

Mr disgusting you can keep the torture.I just want the porn.

Hah!

Here's my issue with all of this. To the major horror movie critics, such as yourself, a good majority of the films aren't torture porn. To the regular horror movie fans such as myself, movies like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Hills Have Eyes 2 were over-the-top torture porn movies. The thing is that casual horror movie fans see too much gore and just categorize it into torture porn. A vast majority of movies recently have gore for the sake of gore and that's not cool. That's why I respect movies like Vacancy and 1408 so much. They made an effective, creepy, scary movie without assloads of gore. If you're going to have excessive gore, at least make it have a decent, compelling, intense story. I felt this with High Tension, The Descent, Hills Have Eyes remake, and the Saw movies. You get wrapped up in the stories, and the gore is there to add to the experience and make it more dramatic, not to disturb and disgust a viewer. All I ever got from movies like Hostel and Captivity are "How can we gross viewers out?" I think it's why, although Hostel 2 wasn't that great, I was proud of it. It managed to at least throw in a decent story without a ton of gore. I like gory movies if it's used well, which is why I always anticipate the Saw and Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies. The scenes evoke emotion, not disgust. I will always remember the angel wing trap from Saw 3 being heart wrenching, as I really felt for that character as I've been a fan of all 3 movies. I felt nothing for characters in Hostel or Captivity or movies like that. That's when gore needs to stop and story needs to step in. I'm a professional journalist, and trust me, some times you need to take a step back from your comfort zone and realize why people are praising the downfall of torture porn and why people classify certain movies as such, whether you feel they are correct or incorrect. Your opinion is not always right.

I agree with Kabukiman, and think that it is about time true horror fans acknowledge the trend that has thrown mainstream horror, not to mention direct-to-dvd independents, into a tailspin. Too many of these movies mirror one another, almost to a ridiculous level. There are minor differences, sure, but the fact remains that for every original horror movie, at least a half-dozen blatant rip-offs will follow, and at least one or more of those will be mainstream releases. "Hostel" wasn't a great movie, but it was a vast improvement for Eli Roth. As a stand-alone feature, it showed spark and originality that "Cabin Fever" lacked. However, for every "Hostel: Part I," sadly, there is a "TCM: The Prequel," which was nothing more than a sorry, worthless attempt to cash-in on a decent remake with little backstory, zero suspense and too much unecessary gore. The movies that will help revive the horror industry may incorporate aspects of "torture porn," but they should not rely on them. I would much rather sit through 10 movies with half the originality of "The Descent," "The Roost," "Slither," "All The Boys Love Mandy Lane," "High Tension" or "The Hamiltons," than sit through another installment of the "Saw" franchise. It's time for horror fans to demand more from the writers, the directors AND the reviewers/bloggers. Mr. Disgusting, I'm sorry that you feel this isn't a topic worthy of debate; however, I believe you are doing your readers, including me, a disservice by not acknowledging the genre's problems and possibly lending your voice and influence to help bring about positive, frightening change.

They ARENT Torture Porn, that's my point. The media turned Saw and Hostel into the standard for the term, and there were no other films but Captivity. There were no rules, are no rules, to what torture porn IS. The media sees it as a movie thats so violent- with torture- that it's almost a sexual experience to the fans. Like a vampire is turned on by blood. There doesnt have to be sex in the film. Anyways, I could easily write an entire essay on this, maybe I should?

Maybe you should, because part of the problem is that there are no real hard and fast rules as to what constitute torture porn. That is why, to me, your article was kinda pointless. We could sit here and debate what is and isn't torture porn. To say that it doesn't exist is ridiculous, because unless you're the person who coined the term, you can't pass judement on it.

The only thing I consider "torture porn" is the Hostel series, and yes, I hope there is a death for that soon. Captivity died quick because it looked bad, and I saw next to no advertising for it on television. Not sure I am the only one. I love the SAW series, and I don't care about the haters. I know i'm not the only one that likes the series for the stories and twists, not just the gore. Basically, Hostel II and Captivity are bad movies, simply put. That's why they bombed

Sgt. Kibukiman, You're comment was dead on. I completely agree with you. I'm gonna give most of these repliers the benefit of the doubt and excuse their ignorance for 'pornography' as to them just being sarcastic, but let's look at the definition. Merriam-Webster defines pornography as, "the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>". Needless to say, this doesn't require penetration or any NUDITY for that matter. Rather it focuses more on explicit subject matter that involves around 'shock and disturbing gore' elements (ala HOSTEL 1 & 2, TCM, SAW 1 through whatever, THHE 1 & 2, etc etc). Granted that all definitions are subjective, it will be in the eye of the beholder. However, I am completely shocked of the 'torture-pornographic' ignorance of the original post, as to say that ultragore/torture movies that arouse a quick emotion is not a fad nowadays....honestly, no offense, but you don't have much of an argument. Perhaps your essay will bring more sufficient evidence to your claim.

This does come across as a very strange decree: "I tell you it does not exist, and therefore it does not." Who do you think you are? Very weird and ignorant. The fact is, the "trend" started earlier but didn't have a name (in the old days they would have labeled these movies as "Splatter Films"). You can actually trace it back to the TCM remake in '03, and then PASSION OF THE CHRIST and the first SAW in '04. The label itself came out of reviews for HOSTEL, but it was in response to the TREND of movies like SAW. And saying that movies like TURISTAS or HILLS 1 & 2 or TCM: THE BEGINNING "don't count" is asinine. YOU'RE wrong. All three SAW films, HILLS 1 & 2, HOSTEL 1 & 2, CAPTIVITY, DEVIL'S REJECTS, WOLF CREEK, TCM: THE BEGINNING, TURISTAS, all of the straight to video knockoffs -- including items like MURDER SET PIECES, CHAOS, ad nauseum, as well as upcoming items like STRANGERS, FUNNY GAMES (remake), CAPTIVE, WRONG TURN 2, SCAR, SAW IV are all capitalizing on THE TREND. The term refers to movies who spend a sizeable amount of screen time showing characters being tortured, in much the same way that a "porno" would linger on the explicit sex act. It's as simple as that and the term ISN'T going to go away just because you say so. What an ass.

Anyone who uses the word torture porn clearly doesn't have any concept of the horror genre. These are are called exploitation films. They have been around a long, long time. This current crop of flicks are inspired by these exploitation flicks made back in the 60s and 70s. Bottom line is anyone who uses the phrase torture porn knows nothing about horror. All these flicks today are just the new generation version of movies like TCM, I Spit on Your Grave, Night Train Murders and the list goes on and on.

I think Disgusting has a point, but he's not thinking this through. Hollywood at times has given us, through Studio competition,double doses of like films in a year. Asteroid flicks. WWII movies. And even that feels like too much of one thing. Torture porn, because of Hostel and Saw being successful, is the latest studio cash-cow. Problem is it's a pretty thin sub-genre. And it got stale extremely fast. I haven't seen Turistas, but Texas Chainsaw the Beginning, could be considered torture porn. In fact I think that's why so many TCM fans felt a bit underwhelmed with the flick, it could have been a better movie, but it followed the latest trend. And after watching the horror movies that have been coming out of Europe these last few years, and especially after watrching 28 Weeks Later just recently, our American horror scene's looking a bit battered and shoddy. We OWN this genre. Let's get the talented people back making strong, entertaining, and most importantly SCARY horror movies. This new wave of Tarantino, Rodriguez, Roth, and Rob Zombie is nothing but a menu of last year's leftovers... Where are the guys with the good ideas???? Not getting any work, or are left having to promote and release their own films without studio backing. The Studio system works off of trends. This is a trend. And it too will pass...

Plus dude. C'mon "Torture Porn" isn't even in webster's yet. Who the hell are you to tell us what true "torture porn" is? If the film has scenes of bound people getting tortured to death, that fits the lable pretty friggin' well... True torture porn is called "snuff" and as far as I know, nobody's releasing that into theaters... Thank god.

The best horror films tend to be a reflection upon social norms of a given period of time. Torture porn, to me, is a direct result of the images readily found on the internet from the war in Iraq. Look at the media interest that is given when an American is captured and held hostage by militants, especially if there is video involved. It's sad to say, but some of the contractors who were beheaded on camera drew A LOT of internet traffic. People watched these videos in fascination, much in the same manner they watch NASCAR in hopes of a serious accident (really, how exciting is watching a car go round and round a track? It's the anticipation...) So, movies like Hostel are "socially acceptable" mediums to experience such gruesomeness, with all the intent in the world to make it as life-like as possible. At the end of the day, the people watching them can sign in relief, knowing it's only a movie, that it's entertainment, and that the "bad guy" will get it in the end. It's not so in real life, and so the movies are a reflection of this by taking something truly horrifying, and exploiting it the nth degree.

I dont get this. Horror movies are suppose to disgust and horrify viewers. Why is there now a label for the more graphic ones? do these people actually go to horror movies expecting to see comedy or something other than horror. Its like someone going to six flags and bitching that coasters are too high. "torture porn" my ass. horror is horror is horror. if youre too much of a pussy, find another genre. go see hairspray or something else

can everyone just please quit your bitching about "torture porn". its just plain out bull shit already! everyone is bitching about these films saying that they are nothing but tits and torture. i believe i even read that someone is claiming that the "saw" franchise is involved with this torture porn? what saw film even involves sex? none, take the porn out and saw is torture, thats the base of the movie. everyone liked the first (for the most part) and as soon as they pop out part 3... "oh saw films are tasteless like Hostel. i believe the "torture porn" began with hostel. well guess what there have only been 2 hostel films.. which only the first i would even call torture porn. no other film has been close with sexual content and torture as the hostel films these days.. so what the fuck are people talking about it being a trend? its not. two films..thats all the whole "torture porn" fiasco is about and its just fucking lame. and Kabukiman, you said that the devils rejects, wolf creek, and that the hills have eyes films are all torture porn? what the hell is going through your mind? where is any porn like substance used in any of the films? i mean the devils rejects had some hookers and otis shoving a gun into priscilla barnes vagina, but thats it. your truely the bitch that keeps feuling this pointless ongoing battle. you should be ashamed that your so useless

GoliathSlasher....just because the word 'porn' is used, doesn't mean sex is involved. Educate yourself.

You can't equate porn to nudity/sex in the literal sense. The fact that some of you are probably would have the media types rolling on the floor with laughter. It's meant as a figure of speech, meaning, whatever gets your rocks off--whatever turns you on. There's very little redeeming qualities to Hostel and the likes--they're not very good films, the acting stinks, etc. The only reason somebody goes to see it is because they get off on seeing gruesome crap happen to somebody, much in the same way A LOT of people get off on porn, especially via the web. The more deviant the porn, the better for some folks... It's a matter of pushing the limits, doing something that hasn't been done before, etc., which pretty much sums up every death scene in the Saw series.

Write as essay -or- just copy & paste the whole article from MSN. btw - since you obviously read that article could you point out or everyone that Trick'R Treat was NEVER moved from it's October release?

Bitch, bitch, bitch.