Talk:Bone Tomahawk

Bone Tomahawk has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 12, 2023. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Horror Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Westerns: Film Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Film task force. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance). Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE which states ". Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.". The Guardian article does say "horror western" in it's title, but the actual authors prose calls it "A Western, with horror trimmings" downplaying the horror aspect. It would be wrong to use it as a source to call it a hybrid per the above rule. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Looking at other reviews, it seems that the film is a blend of several genres. It has Western and horror genres with some trappings of comedy as well.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/movies/review-bone-tomahawk-is-western-horror-and-comedy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
• https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-mn-bone-tomahawk-review-20151023-story.html--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Let's look into major sources and see what they say, probably paying attention to more specific detail if they go into genre rather than just listing genres willy-nilly.

* RogerEbert.com: "a surprisingly sturdy Western [...] until it takes a sharp left turn and becomes something closer to horror. These kind of genre mash-ups rarely work, which makes the impact of “Bone Tomahawk” that much more impressive." here

* The Guardian: "well-made, macabre and violent western-horror" here

* New York Times: "a witty fusion of western, horror and comedy...[Zahler] has given us a horror movie whose monsters are withheld until the tail end of its 132 minutes, and an action movie whose longest section involves mostly walking and talking." here

* Irish Times: "there's plenty to admire about this innovative genre-bender...thrilling horror-western" here

* Variety: "a gleefully grisly genre gazpacho ...pic’s gut-twisting left turn into hard horror territory"

* IGN: "A violent horror-western...A genre mash-up. Initially the film is a western" here

* Paste Magazine " If Bone Tomahawk is a neo-cannibal-western-thriller-romance, in thrall to a whole host of traditions, genres, and micro-niches" Paste Magazine

* Starburst Magazine: "effectively injecting the Western with a shot of horror...Whilst the Western and horror genres might seem an unusual mismatch [...] provides one of the best examples of either genre that we’ve seen in recent years." here

* Empire: " exceptionally gruesome Western" "the Grand Guignol last act plays out – including one spectacularly appalling cannibal dismemberment – with effects far more convincing than in the ‘80s chop-em-up-and-eat-'em video nasties. Despite that, this is as much a comedy as a cowboy horror film." here

So there are certainly discussions of it being a hybrid of predominantly horror and western, but a large chunk of reviewers also note it just basically becomes a horror film towards the final act. I think if we could add something reflecting this it will clear the air with any viewer confused about what kind of film they are getting into. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you, I am always a stickler for details. Its interesting how each review and outlet imputs it as either horror western or western with horror trappings and some major outlets. I would love to see if an interview with the writer/director would put a rest to its classifacation.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't actually like using the creators interpretation on a genre as the "go to", because I feel like that's more just how they want their film to be marketed. It think that information should be included in an article, but as genre is subjective, we can only go with third party sources, not the director or studio themselves. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Rotten Tomatoes consensus mentions the film's "peculiar genre blend", so just leaving it as a Western in the lede is clearly inappropriate. TV Guide calls it a "terrifying Western horror film".Polygon (also regarded as reliable per WP:GREL) calls it "one of the most violent, creepiest, and most disturbing horror movies of the last decade." A Slant Magazine review says: "The western, like the horror film (and Zahler is essentially fusing the two here), is at its best when operating as a subterranean response...". A list on Infobae of pulpy, violent films describes it as a hybrid of western and horror with "brutal gore". None of these sources "downplay" the horror aspect nor do they mention action, romance, thriller or comedy as genres (the Infobae article reserves the latter for its description of Lowlife).

So characterising them that way over horror just because a Paste Magazine article and an NYTimes review say so would be undue. The best you can argue based on the sources you've provided, Andrzejbanas, is having 'Western horror-comedy' in the lede. But it is clear sources generally classify Bone Tomahawk as a horror more than as a comedy. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Donkey Hot-day Per MOS:FILMGENRE, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources". That said, I do think you have more that seem to call it more of a horror film. I was probably leaning more towards the sources that say it sort of only became a horror film towards the end, but I guess maybe we shouldn't bank on that. "Brutal gore" and other aspects aren't what make a horror film a horror film, but as we do have a lot of solid sources focusing on horror, I'm leaning towards a hybrid of horror and western is appropriate here. I think we should list both horror and western. That said, I feel like there is not nearly enough for comedy. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm a little bit confused here. Didn't you agree that it's appropriate to list it as both a western and a horror in the lead sentence, regardless of your personal stance in not thinking it should be called a horror movie? Why did you remove it then? Memez24 (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because the majority of sources refer to it as predominantly being a Western. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you have consensus for this change as a number of editors have already expressed that the horror subgenre is appropriate for the article's lede. I would say only a minority of sources call it "predominantly" a Western with minimal/downplayed horror elements as you suggest. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply