LJG765

Whoops! Totally missed that. Fixed.

Still not sure why you're sad. :/

I like the challenges and if they stay the same, I'm still going to participate and host. But if the agreement is to add some or change things around, I don't see why that's a negative. *shrugs*

ntnon

Yes.

I may read through the above soon, but in the meantime... are we looping back to "change for change's sake"? Because IF so... let's not.

ntnon

I like that... in theory. But in practice, I have limited funds, limited time and limited collection/library/avenues. I can't watch something I don't have (access to), so this becomes awkward.

The Horror Subset is excellent fun. A great idea. But I can't take part unless the choices are available to me*. Too much direction and structure can suck the enjoyment right of things... although "too much" is naturally subjective.


*I do like the drive to make sure most are accessible, but sans Netflix, I'm still often out of luck...

LJG765

That is a good point-accessibility. I know that it was mentioned that this would all be optional and the viewer could do the challenge the "old" way. This would just be in addition to help foster discussion, from my understanding.

So if you couldn't find something, that would be ok to.

(Do you have a local library nearby? I have great luck with mine especially for challenges like the Criterion).

davidh777

It's true that some people participate merely to tackle the unfinished pile in a targeted way and aren't looking for new acquisitions.



I think Golden was just making an off-color joke.

ntnon

Mildly-flippant reply to this bit (which you even touch on briefly in the next - unquoted - paragraph):

SO WHAT?

Does it matter intrinsically that Other Challenges are not as popular, not as comment-y, not as supported? If only two people participate and have fun, that should be seen as a Good Thing.

If the Challenges were little more than (focused) 'what are you watching' discussions.... again: So What? We watch, we list, we (may) talk. It's cathartic, cameraderie, challenging. It lends focus. It allows for flexibility. It helds guide, allows for discussion, venting and reviewing. Must there be a greater purpose? Even if there is hope for Bigger Things; the absence of hoardes and lengthy conversations doesn't brand things disappointing without us first being disappointed. And there's no reason for that in the face of loose focus, guiding genres, lists and interactions.

ntnon

Counter: broadness is inclusive. Dilution is diversity.

A smaller set is repetitive. (See upthread anti-Criterion comments.) It disenfranchises people without access, and in an extreme case may suggest that one is not part of the group-proper if they are not watching the same thing..

That (may) move it from "Challenge" to "Chore". A rush to tick boxes, rather than watch what we want. I tend not to have much time to comment. Less to do the checklists (which I miss). And trying to make time for either leaves me no time to watch anything!

Some have time. Some have great(er) collections and a dozen online options. Others do not. To be welcoming and inclusive is to allow the Haves to exist alongside the Have Nots.

ntnon

SO WHAT?

And, more helpfully: GOOD! In addition to discussing the same thing, how helpful (if expensive) it can be to see someone recommend/enjoy an unknown entity. To think that someone with such otherwise good and similar taste might make an unseen film seem a more sensible purchase than before. If we all watch the same thing, and agree (or not), that's discussion. But it's limited and terminal. If we watch things "together" and apart - that we can watch together later - that's more community building than anything!

"But"?! Right after lamenting that no challenge will be as popular as Horror, you put a "but" after "I know it's pppular"?!

ntnon

There it is. Seconded.

Best of both worlds - nothing changes... unless you want it to.

ntnon

Yes, and quite a reasonable, friendly one. But with a VERY limited range. Criterion was what I tried to get from them first, and they have ten.* I have seen all them - most through the library! - and own five or six of the ten. Overall, their range of films is... limited. I think I went through the Horror "people" lists a couple of years ago and found four or five out of the hundreds of possibilities** (and half of those were Milla Jovovich films, two of which weren't even horror!)...

*Plus, I imagine, several laserdisc-only films like Dr. No and Ghostbusters.

**In fairness, many of the names were bafflingly obscure and/or foreign.

orlmac

I was confused by a couple of the exchanges but I did get a feeling that at least one person wants things to stay relatively the same and there is some suggestions to consider changes that are not too extreme (being extremely general here). I would suggest that February does lend itself to a mini Romance Challenge and there is some room to discuss adding a Drama challenge concurrently with the Criterion Challenge. Having said that, I know that at least one objection to a mini Romance Challenge was made (the shortness of the time leading to some frustration) and there is not a prevailing interest in adding any new challenges right now. I voted against it because I thought it was moving too fast, I think it would be very helpful for people to weigh in on these two suggestions, including especially if I have their positions improperly summarized.

I do think that one idea worth exploring is the idea of some suggestion of certain movies to watch at certain days, or maybe a movie to watch each week to promote some similarity in what we watch. Start very slow, maybe only allow movies that are on YouTube so everyone can participate if they are interested. Just something to think about.

LJG765

D'oh. My local library is tiny and has a pretty good selection for the size, but what I utilize is their online catalog which connects most of the libraries on my side of the state. I place an order, usually within a few days, I get an email and it's in. The popular stuff has a wait list, but you do get on it that way as well. They also are able to try to hunt something down outside of the network but that is only half successful. I find that between the two means I can order about 90-95% of what I am interested in watching.

Trevor

Nton, just a quick observation before I have more time later, but a lot of your above seems like you think there should be little difference between the Challenges and the "what are you watching" threads. I definitely agree with inclusivity, I've been hammered here before for pushing it, but think we need to differentiate a bit between the two types of threads.

I now see that it appears you pretty much agree with my conclusion, but you know, what's the Internet for if you can't debate back and forth on little points. More later.

lisadoris

So I ran the Oscar Challenge last year and while it's certainly not the Horror Challenge, I think there's a pretty active core group of folks who participate every year. Are there things we can do to boost participation? I'm sure. It's a rather broad Challenge so we can do daily categories or something to that effect if folks are willing. Horror is not my thing so I've never even peeked at their threads but I guess now I'll take a gander to see where all the fun has been happening.

Though I participate in other challenges I don't discuss quite as much. As someone pointed out, by the time the Challenge rolls around I've figured out what I am going to watch and I just run with it. whereas with the Oscar Challenge, someone might post thoughts on a film I wasn't interested in or hadn't heard of and I might try to track it down based on the recommendation and engage in a discussion. I figured that's the point of the Challenge.

If the goal is to create and foster community then I think we should find ways to sure up participation in the existing challenges. If there's a consensus that a particular Challenge just isn't working, then we can try something different. if on the other hand we're trying to fill the calendar then we can do that too.

Dimension X

Sorry, but to me the main point of challenges is in the last two words of that quote: "have fun." If I'm enjoying what I'm watching, and the other participants are having fun, then it's a good challenge. You may agree that "the discussion thread must supersede the individual's enjoyment as a viewer", but to me that's just nuts.
By your own description, since people are going to watch those genres anyway, Horror and Holiday are nothing more than "what are you watching this month" threads.

I never felt that was done in order to "encompass pretty much every film," but to make the challenges more open to different people with different tastes in film.
Everyone watching the same "approved" films doesn't sound too fun to me. Add to that a "requirement" to post your thoughts on the movies, and it turns into a homework assignment instead of a fun diversion.
The Comedy Challenge has theme nights and a checklist, but only a few people were interested in them.
Why do you say that like it's a bad thing?
So, in order to build the community, we need to divide the community first?
So instead of a broad challenge like "Horror" every October, we should narrow that down to "Japanese Ghost Movies," or "Mummy Movies."
Again, let's divide the community in order to build the community.

People are already free to do this, and already do, by choosing what they watch based on personal interests, availability, etc.

I just want to point out that because the MYOC is so flexible, adding another challenge to May is superfluous. Whatever the second challenge is will most likely already qualify for the MYOC. It would be like someone deciding to start a separate challenge in October just for Korean Horror movies, or something similar.
This. Suddenly enjoying yourself is a bad thing around here. No wonder we can't get more people to join in.
Once again, you said what I wanted to say better than I could.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

I don't participate because I'd be re-watching movies. For most challenges, I'm trying to watch my unwatched stuff and the only exception to that would be if I'm in the mood to complete a checklist but I haven't bothered with that for a few years. I've also just never cared about the Academy Awards or other movie awards in general.

I kind of like themes and thought about doing them in past challenges I've run but I would have done a theme week instead of theme night. When every night in a month is a different theme, it just seems so rushed and if you want to partake, you have to keep up each night. With a week, there's no rush, it feels more casual, and I can have a relaxed fun time.

BobO'Link

That's me. The first couple of years I'd do checklists and strive for 100% completion. Then I found I was watching some the the same films over every year just for a checklist item. I stopped doing them. I also am not generally looking for new acquisitions but almost *always* purchase a couple of new films due to what others are watching. And those come from discussion, not looking over the lists.
I feel the same about the Academy Award *and* the Criterion challenges. Both feel limiting due to the theme and I just don't care enough to bother.
I tried "theme night" in the Horror Challenge a couple of years ago but hit so many walls - film not available for or expensive to purchase, requires a subscription to stream, just doesn't sound "interesting" or isn't within my taste in films - that I've not done it again.

When it comes to the challenges I'd just rather watch what I want with the only direction being the challenge "theme" and then talk about it in the threads. All the other stuff *can* be fun but it's generally not my thing.

TheBigDave

The theme nights and subset movies are my favorite parts of the Horror challenge. It helps keep me focused on the challenge, and encourages me to try new movies.

Theme weeks sound good. Also add a subset movie that everyone can watch/discuss that week. If you wanted to add more flexibility, just run the theme from Mon-Fri and let the weekends be open.

Maybe that would solve the problem with the History challenge. I think someone mentioned they wanted it limited to War/Western. Week 1 - World War II, Week 2 - Spaghetti Westerns, Week 3 - Vietnam War, Week 4 - Classic Westerns. Then everyone that wanted to follow the themes would be doing War/Western movies. And everyone that wanted to ignore the themes could watch Mad Men.

Trevor

Darn Dimension X, you figured me out. My only goal all these years was to take the fun away.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

I'd follow this theme. I'd be like a bunch of mini challenges related to the main one and I wouldn't get burned out on any single topic.

Dimension X

You give me way too much credit. I would have never guessed it was your goal "all these years." It really seems like you've changed almost overnight. Well, good job there, I suppose.

I'm going to miss the old, easygoing, fun-loving Trevor (even if he was only a false front). Oh well, just another nail in the ol' DVD Talk coffin.

ntnon

Yep... that's the Criterion holdings of, so they say, the entirety of Central Mississippi.

I think we can also do out-of-area special ordering, but at a cost (unknown) and with a considerable delay. Which may be useful in a general sense, but not as straightforward..

ntnon

Ummmmmm.... possibly.

I don't really know, because broadly - as mentioned - time barely allows me to skim the surface, meaning that I haven't the time for them, but my impression of how I see the initial differences between the two is in their PURPOSE.

i.e. largely in their focus on a particular grouping/genre of content.

The more major difference, I'd posit, is that a WAYW? thread is (seen as? IS?) more of a personal announcement - an individualized list post; discussion&comment allowed but not necessarily needed or invited. In essence, I assume that it's general purpose aligns most closely with a Challenge LIST thread, and not a Challenge DISCUSSION thread.

Thus, the major difference - as I see it in theory, without much comparative experience - is that the Challenges one-up generalised "watching" threads in two ways: focus, recommendation, etc. on the one hand and INVITING discussion (rather than merely allowing it) on the other.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But it seems one is more personal, for reading/ignoring by third parties and the other is inclusive and deliberately geared to being collaborative.


I think that differentiation is already inherent in the system...

Exactly. Ultimately, my ppsition is simple (allegedly): Change, but change mostly by adding and certainly NOT just because things can be changed.

ntnon

If that's a shorthand of me, then I'm less "everything stays the same" than ANTI-"Change Everything!" Which I think is a vital difference, even if it winds up summarising similarly.

Agreed.

And collaborative MYOCs.
And genre weeks within Oscars.

Never a bad idea, but does rather add duties/time on the Hosts. So, what do HOSTS only think of greater efforr/focus at the front end? Including checklists, but also beyond checklists?

As a participant, I did/do like the differently-focused days of October and November.

ntnon

That draws out an interesting side-point - considering the desires/thoughts of the "core group" (i.e. the half dozen commenting there and here) vs. the possibility of guessing what desires/thoughts might expand said group.

Realistically, one involves ASKING, the other theory and guesswork...

Ditto, citing time rather than watchlist.

Exactly. Discussion leads to recommendation & discovery.