gutwrencher

Yup, I've seen BCW but don't own it yet. I'll get it at some point. Santanico... I love and I got that back when it was released. Coming from Mondo Macabro, I knew it must have a special something.

Some of the X Rated Kult titles have gone out of print but I see a few titles are starting to pop up re-released here in the states.

Spiderbite

Keep the 60 minute rule. This cuts out a lot of arguments and neither of the two people against it has still shown a multitude of examples that the hour rule would affect.

I have good friends in the filmaking industry that do both features and shorts. Their features are never able to get real distribution if their films are under 75 minutes. The Academy may have this rule of 40 minutes but please advise the last major film they nominated for a feature award that was under the 65 minute mark.

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0059894/

The one example given was a MADE FOR TV film and was foreign at that. Read the information given. The only reason it was released in the cinema was because it was banned from being shown on the BBC way back in 1965. Pretty poor example to try to get the 60 minute rule dismissed.

Also, any consideration for what I suggested previously regarding a October/Halloween/holiday type challenge and then a "hard" horror movie challenge in the spring or some other time?

OwlAtHome

I never considered those Halloween themed shows as horror but since I'd be spending nearly 5 hours watching them and since 'It's The Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown" is eligible I thought I'd at least ask what everyone thought.

Abe.

One great memory I have from Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, is the opening song by The Goo Goo Dolls. Rzeznik's song fits perfectly with the entire NOES series.

JMcCraw

With regard to the "Masters of Horror" series, I feel that they should count in this challenge.

I don't have showtime so I have been seeing them on DVD. Watching the feature, listening to the commentary, and watching the featurettes on each disc can easily be a 3+ hour experience.

Also, many of the best features are lean and well crafted. "Incident On and Off a Mountain Road" is one of my favorites and in its current form does not have any filler material that a writer may feel compelled to insert to stretch it out to 90 minute "feature length".

The MOH is a mixed bag but there is some really good work in there and is worthy of this competition. Just my $.02.

MechanicalMan

Why do I need to show a "multitude of examples?" The fact that there aren't many films 40 - 60 minutes long is just evidence that watching shorter films cannot be "abused." I still don't understand why there would be any confusion over what a movie is, but maybe some people are dumber than I give them credit for. However, that seems irrelevant anyway, because you guys have already posted additional language that would specifically ban episodes of shows with recurring characters, or however it was stated. So you are obviously trying to establish what is and isn't eligible with other criteria.

Uh... I used that as an example because it won an Oscar. I'm already familiar with the movie, obviously. Who cares that it was intended for TV? Who cares that it was foreign? I don't even understand why you mentioned that. And BTW, I'm trying to keep the existing rule. You're the ones trying to change it. Oh, and that's the second example I've given; the other was released in 2005. Do you want me to provide more examples? I'm sure that I can, but it seems unnecessary. I'm not trying to make the case that there have been billions of movies made that are 40 - 59 minutes. I just believe that the rule already in place is logical and there is no reason to change it.

But if you guys insist on making a change, I do have a suggestion: If you want to raise the minimum length to force people to watch "real" movies, then change the minimum length to 61 minutes. How about that? Oh, but then you wouldn't be able to watch 25 episodes of MOH next year. So I guess you probably don't want to do that...?

Spiderbite

Yeah...an Oscar for Best Documentary, not Best Film.

If you look at my old posts, you will see that I, personally, have always thought that Masters of Horror should not be included. They are episodes of a TV Series and range from 45 minutes to 65 minutes. But most disagree with me on this point.

I personally would be fine if the challenge put the minimum time down as 70 minutes. There is a reason behind the term "feature-length."

Fuck documentaries, short and student made films (and silent ones for that matter ). Bring on the nunsploitation films. I honestly had no such idea that such a genre existed until the posts by gutwrencher (I bow before your dvd library Master Gutwrencher).

MechanicalMan

So what? The required length is 40 minutes for both, and I was responding to the comment that the movies considered are never actually that short.

Sounds good to me. If it's going to be changed, change it to 70.

Russell S

Wow. It's been fun doing this this year, but I recall it being more fun last year when I did it on my own. Way too early to say now, but I'm betting I won't be in on this next time. Too much drama.

Ginwen

Same here. I'm doing it for my fun, not to win.

I think that's the problem right there. It's a challenge, not a competition--if you don't believe me look at the subject. As such, I wish no one had ever mentioned a prize, but maybe it would've gotten argumentative anyway. You're challenging yourself to watch x amount of horror (or halloween or horror-related or however you want to define it) dvds. You define it. Everything in life doesn't have to be a competition.

caligulathegod

I'm actually more interested in protecting the Universal Classics rather than MOH. House of Dracula is only 67 minutes. We're not making a rule that would even threaten a Universal Classic.

Well, there's never going to be guidelines everyone will agree to. The idea is actually to keep things simple. It may not seem like it, but it really is. It's a movie challenge, which we've all agreed means features. Despite the academy rules, in practice, films must be at least 60 minutes to have any shot at distribution (this is including 20s-60s). The film listed was obviously a special event rather than an example of an exhibited film. The purpose of this rule is to simplify the definition. We don't have to have special rules about TV shows or anything. If it's under an hour, it doesn't count. That trims off TV series while allowing TV movies.

The rest are refinements that further simplify it. It's about watching movies. Commentaries aren't movies. Making-of documentaries aren't movies. Spotlights on films or filmmakers aren't movies. Documentaries on true life atrocities or phenomena such as serial killers or monsters are close enough to count because they are about real horrors (in other words, they are about something, like a movie) rather than just wanking off about another film or films.

Each movie gets watched once. This eliminates the question about multiple versions and overlaps the commentary rule.

So really, we've got four simple rules. First, the film must be a feature. Second, the film must be a movie. Third, it must be Horror. Fourth, it must be watched only once.

For those that think we're taking the fun out of it, it's not really like that. Four simple firm rules will actually forestall arguments. If there are questions, we have simple criteria to base answers on.

We might have different definitions of horror, itself, but that's why we should have rigorous but respectful debate.

Even the definitions of horror aren't meant to be exclusionary, but if people are seriously wondering if ET is Horror, then it shows that there is a need for some sort of authoritative voice, hence the debate process.

We've added in some wild cards to make it fun and give it some variety. A small concession to allow in a cartoon or short film or two won't ruin the contest, but be more like adding a little salt and pepper.

gutwrencher

People can mail me in the "off season" and ask if a certian film is horror and if I say "no"...then they cant watch it. I am that voice....hear me roar.

Right...it's about watching horror films. And as much as I love 3 or 4 of the MOH series....they don't count so I dont watch them. Also, I felt a little sinful when I actually counted the commentery from Dracula in my list. I've decided that does not count. I'm just replacing it with one from below in this post. I started my list without giving the time watched so I'm not starting now. Listing the time watched seems like a waste of time but I'll do it next year if I must...but it's really pointless. Time watched means little.

Well, what a brutal day on the work front. 13.5 hours in the freakin' rain....all day! I slipped in the Baron Blood import...as well as The House With Laughing Windows. Now will check out the Zombie Holocaust.

Spiderbite

I have seen you mention this and I was wondering if there are really that many documentaries that are over 60 minutes in length. Most one that get shown on TV are usually 60 minutes long but that includes commercials. Once those are taken out, they would be in the 40 to 50 minute range. Am I just over-looking a lot of documentaries or are there even many which would qualify? Not looking to debate but was seriously curious if this documentaries should even be a category to include.

Sorry to those who feel this discussion is taking the fun out of it. I felt the fun was taken out of it when I saw people padding their lists with TV shows, commentaries, documentaries/makings of, etc. which is why I kind of snowballed the discussion.

gutwrencher

Right on brother....I have to agree there also. No docs, no commentery, no multiple viddies.....let's honor the horror film itself. Remember in the non horror Magnolia(great film) when Tom Cruise is forcing the "respect the cock" issue? Thats me.....respect the horror film!

caligulathegod

I'm thinking of those Sunn Classics, like Mysterious Monsters, The Bermuda Triangle, and others. There was one mentioned earlier, Paradise something,. I'm on my way out the door, so I can't look it up. Blue Water, White Death was a great exploitation doc on sharks. There's Mondo Cane and the other Mondo films like Africa Addio. I'm sure there's more I haven't heard of. Mysterious Monsters might be cheesy now, but in the 70s when everyone believed Bigfoot was real it was quite scary. I'd hate to exclude "real" horror, as long as it is presented as such. I want to include as much as I can. A movie with a 5 minute scene of trick or treating (not even that, they just walk through the neighborhood) doesn't make a film horror, but I'd accept Hocus Pocus as horror/Halloween related. Yeah, real horror film fans will blanch, but I'd prefer to be inclusive than exclusive. I just think it should meet some basic criteria and at least have the flavor of horror. ET doesn't cut it, but Addams Family does. It's all subjective, but the 4 rules aren't, and they are easy to keep.

Shack

Perhaps there should be a thread entitled "100 Movies. 31 Days. The 3rd Annual 'October Horror Movie Challenge'"? Certainly that's most of the discussion in this thread.

Seriously, caligulathegod made a great suggestion for next year's rules several pages back. Since emotions are high right now and several people are just not going to agree, why don't we table this until the month is over? After this challenge ends we can think about next time. After 20 more days of this, no one may want to participate at all next year, and that would be a shame.

Besides, all this arguing is taking away from the nunsploitation discussion!

gutwrencher

Oh god...I love that shit. For me though, it's a tough call. Personally the Mondo Cane stuff just does not fit the "horror film mold". It's brutal and horrific....but hmmmmm. I shall dwell on this for a few days but as much as I want to re-viddey that entire set....I just feel funny including it in the challenge this year. Man, that whole set is awesome.

Cameron

agreed...and at the end of the day its really Chad's call on everything...his threads, his rules...though i'm sure he'll be happy to take all suggestion. Caligula did a good job with the first draft, but It needs some work. I'm for not discussing until after the month is over, and from this point on don't plan to.

Now back to the nuns

caligulathegod

See, what I've done is alter it from a general video watching contest into a challenge for horrror fans. Horror fans KNOW what horror is. By making it inclusive, we allow the more casual fan to participate and have fun, too. We have some basic guidelines to keep it fair and consistent, but ultimately your conscience and taste are the final judges.

Cedrock

Mines working fine, i just updated my list on page 8

caligulathegod

By all means count that stuff. It's meant to appeal to the same taste, if you will, as horror. It's supposed to disturb horror fans on a more visceral level because it's real (or at least sold as real-who cares if it's not) If you can actually watch Africa Addio or Shocking Asia then it should be counted. How much of acknowledged horror is about little more than visceral reactions? How about HG Lewis? Blood Feast is more about fondling guts than terror. Horror encompasses the gross out film. Now, it has to have the flavor of horror, though. Jackass the Movie is not Horror. Africa Blood and Guts is.

Unfortunately, this has the side effect of allowing in Faces of Death. I don't like it. I'm not watching it. I believe it should count. It is put together like a real documentary and is not just a random collection of Death images (or death porn, as I call it). There's no way we can exclude something just because it's bad, otherwise we would eliminate 90% of Horror!

If we want to table the rules discussion, that's up to everyone. I'll still answer any questions, but I think I've made my case.


Oh, and someone asked about Wizard of Oz. This is from a horror fan, probably not on Gut's level, but I consider my horror taste respectable. This is also coming from a child of the 70s who used to thrill to watch WOZ every year and still watch it at least once a year and whenever it's revived in the cinema. It's a musical and family movie. It's a fantasy. Does it cross over to horror? I've already stated that purism is ridiculous, because sometimes science fiction or fantasy is just an excuse for the existence of the monster or horror or whatever. So, does Wizard of Oz cross over into horror (or terror)?

Two words:Flying Monkeys. I say count it.

Chad

I have been keeping up with the thread and will be addressing some issues brought up when its not so late.


BTW, there are several public domain horror film titles available for viewing online or downloading:


Freaks:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...64433&q=freaks


Nosferatu:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=Public+Domain


The Vampire Bat:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=Public+Domain


Several more here:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Public+Domain

MechanicalMan

It may have already been mentioned, but archive.org is a source for public domain films.

Cameron

great stuff Chad...but I don't think Freaks is public domain...wonder what other gems can be found that way.

just finished "I drink your blood" for the first time. Very cool movie... anybody know where to find the "Evil King Cobra Dance" on the dvd...i scanned the menus and couldn't find it, but its listed on the back of the disc.

Abe.

How many people are gonna cram the Friday the 13th series on Friday?