EdTheRipper

I don't know what you're trying to imply with that statement but I can assure you that I watched every minute of every movie that I had listed. There was nothing "made up" about my list.

fiver

1B. I don't know of any of these sub-61 minute Universals. I also wasn't all that thrilled with Masters of Horror being counted but other tv shows not being counted despite a theatrical bent in the storylines.
2B. Should be counted when we have the october themed tv show challenge
3C. Definitely should not watch a film multiple times; however, I would have a hard time watching as many films if I was not able to watch the MST3K versions for 3 reasons: 1) I don't have quite as vast a library of horror films to choose from as others do, 2) my wife won't watch all of the non-mst3k films and 3) they add some fun to the mix. As long as I watch horror/monster themed episodes, I'd like to see these be allowed.
4B. Horror movies only
5A. Documentaries about horror movies that meet the minimum requirements are really no different to me than allowing commentaries plus it's a good thing to expand one's knowledge of the genre
6A. I don't like to sift through people's lists to get to the discussion.

Overall though, despite my opinions, I just want to see everyone have fun with this challenge as I know I did this year.

Michael

caligulathegod

1. What should constitute a qualifying feature film:


B) 60 minutes. Please note this would disqualify some older Universal, etc. films that run slightly under an hour as well as a few "Masters of Horror" episodes.

I disagree. Despite the academy rule, in practice a film won’t be distributed unless it is at least an hour. Universal flicks and even Ed Wood flicks are an hour and a couple minutes. The 60 minute rule simplifies the qualifications for a film. It excludes TV episodes without a special TV rule. I have no idea why the academy cuts it off at 40 minutes, but a feature is over 60 minutes and always has been.

2. Concerning "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" being the one exception to the rules:

C) Enact the three "wild cards" option as brought-up by caligulathegod.
I’d rather have a choice of what short I want to watch. I love Peanuts, but I love Vincent, too.

3. Should commentaries count:

D) No. Only films.

I love commentaries, but it’s not the same experience as watching a film. I’d ALMOST accept it if they were scholarly and informative interpretations of the film’s symbolism and themes, but we all know that commentaries are just having the director or actors tell you how great it was to work with these people and how nice so and so was. Also, if the film is so bad that its only redeeming feature is the commentary, pick another film. If you just watched the film a month ago and can only bear to watch it again with the commentary, pick another film.

This is a Horror challenge. Horror films are intended to scare, shock, disgust, or whatever. Commentaries are more ABOUT Horror than actually being Horror. It’s against the spirit of the challenge if you don’t watch the film in their natural idiom. It’s like having a car race and counting mechanics working on the cars as racing. It’s NOT racing. Racing is going around the track real fast, not turning a wrench on a bolt or changing the oil, even though they both involve the same vehicle. (I’m not talking about pit crews-just follow me on the metaphor)

4. Should television series (Buffy, Angel, Supernatural, etc.) count:

B) No. As the titles indicates, it's "The October Horror MOVIE Challenge".

’nuff said.

5. Should horror documentaries (The American Nightmare, Boogeymen, Fear in the Dark, etc.) count:

C) Other. Please explain.

Documentaries are about real things. I don’t care if the “real things” are actually real or not, just that they are presented as real. I would accept docs on Bigfoot, or serial killers, or ghosts, or supernatural phenomena, etc. I would accept Mondo type documentaries, like Mondo Cane, Africa Addio, Shocking Asia, Faces of Death, etc. I would not count Horror documentaries about other horror movies or horror filmmakers. The idea of the Horror challenge is to watch Horror, not watching another film jerk off on another film or filmmaker. Documentaries should be just as scary or shocking as a horror film to count.

6. Should we continue having two separate threads (One for lists, one for discussion):

A) Yes. It makes the lists easier to sort through.

ignition

1. A - Uh, yeah. I'll take those academies' words as gold and take the 40 minute minimum. Not counting classic Universal monster movies would be tragic.

2. B - No exceptions. Sorry.

3. B - I don't see an issue with this. Except we're on the honor system so you damn well better be listening intently and not just doing work with the movie & commentary on in the background.

4. B - No explanation necessary.

5. B - I think they're invaluable to the overall enjoyment of horror movies. Even though they didn't scare the crap out of me, the TCM documentaries were very informative and interesting.

6. A - It eases the clutter.

TomOpus

I was wondering the same thing. I probably missed the list but I'm curious which ones wouldn't be counted. I checked all the movies in my Legacy Collection (Frankenstein, Dracula, Wolf Man, Creature from the Black Lagoon) and none of them were under an hour. That's 17 movies right there.

caligulathegod

I hope that we actually give everyone a chance to read through the arguments for and against before we make a final decision. The explanations for the different opinions might change minds.

Shack

The only feature on my list under an hour was Daughter of Horror (1955), which runs 56 minutes. But I'm not making either argument; I'll play by whatever rules are set.

MovieExchange

Has there been thought given to most minutes watched as a subcategory? This is a simplification, but let's say person "A" watches 10 old Hammer or Universal films clocking in at around 65 minutes, but person "B" watches 8 modern horror films clocking in at 105 minutes. Person "A" may have more movies watched (10 to 8) but person "B" has more time clocked in (840 minutes to 650 minutes).

caligulathegod

I'm all for simplifying, not complicating. It's supposed to be fun, but to be a real challenge.

Four simple rules.

1. Must be a feature (defined by the feature length rule -60 minutes would very simply eliminate TV shows while allowing TV movies. No special extra rules need to be made.)
2. Must be a movie (a commentary or making-of documentary is not a movie, it's an adjunct to a movie).
3. Must be Horror.
4. Must be watched only once.

We would also allow 3 wild cards for variety. For those who only watch a few films, it will be fun and help add to their numbers. For those who watch 100+ films, it will not affect them in the least but will be a little salt and pepper for their effort.

We would also have an appeals process for defining horror without it coming across as bitching. Sometimes folks have genuine questions on a film that they either haven't seen or perceive as Horror and want a second opinion.

So far, we've found a single exception to the 60 minute feature rule. It was legitimately released to a theater and if brought up for review, I would accept it. It still doesn't change the fact that all other true features are 60+ minutes. The 40 minute rule seems more like a loophole to allow in TV episodes. Other than Daughter of Horror, you aren't going to find many movies under 60 minutes, even Universal or Skid Row cheapies. If we DO keep the 40 minute rule then make a rule prohibiting TV episodes, then it has the exact same effect. 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Why not just go with ONE rule instead of TWO?

PaulNJ21

1. What should constitute a qualifying feature film:

A) The current 40-minute rule

2. Concerning "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" being the one exception to the rules:

C) Enact the three "wild cards" option as brought-up by caligulathegod.

3. Should commentaries count:

C) Yes, but only one viewing is allowed: Either with a commentary or without.

4. Should television series (Buffy, Angel, Supernatural, etc.) count:

B) No. As the titles indicates, it's "The October Horror MOVIE Challenge".

5. Should horror documentaries (The American Nightmare, Boogeymen, Fear in the Dark, etc.) count:

B) No.

6. Should we continue having two separate threads (One for lists, one for discussion):

A) Yes. It makes the lists easier to sort through.

Darth Maher

Hi all,

Just found this thread and thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.

If we are looking to simplify things, I'll go with caligulathegod's "Four Simple Rules".

If we are looking to expand this contest to include other things besides "Movies", here are my choices... as with some other people's posts, my comments follow in italics:

1. What should constitute a qualifying feature film:

A) The current 40-minute rule -- The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the American Film Institute, and the British Film Institute all define a feature as a film with a running time of forty minutes or longer.

It seems that most films are longer than 60 minutes, but this covers films that might be a bit shorter.

2. Concerning "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" being the one exception to the rules:

C) Enact the three "wild cards" option as brought-up by caligulathegod.

Some things are just required Halloween viewing for some people... "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" is one for many people. If we are including anything other than true "movies", then this should count, even if it is a wild card option

3. Should commentaries count:

C) Yes, but only one viewing is allowed: Either with a commentary or without.

But you actually have to sit and watch it. No "it was on in the background" entries.

4. Should television series (Buffy, Angel, Supernatural, etc.) count:

C) Other

We could enact the three "wild cards" option (as brought-up by caligulathegod) for series episodes that are Halloween-related. TV movies or miniseries should count without having to dip into your wild card reserves.

5. Should horror documentaries (The American Nightmare, Boogeymen, Fear in the Dark, etc.) count:

A) Yes.

Sure, why not... if they meet the runtime requirement.

6. Should we continue having two separate threads (One for lists, one for discussion):

A) Yes. It makes the lists easier to sort through.


I also find it hard to sift through the list when people create a new list every time they watch something new. I'm all for just updating your one existing list.

Whatever is decided, I'll post my stuff. I do this just for fun and I usually don't plan to even come close to 100. And I'm sure I'll post my 'non-qulaifying" viewing somewhere in my list (but stated as such) just for my own tracking purposes.

Ginwen

1. What should constitute a qualifying feature film:
B) 60 minutes. Takes care of a lot of other things.

2. Concerning "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" being the one exception to the rules:
B) It should NOT count as it does not meet current specifications. Again, just makes it simpler, 1 hour yes, less than 1 hour no.

3. Should commentaries count:
C) Yes, but only one viewing is allowed: Either with a commentary or without.

4. Should television series (Buffy, Angel, Supernatural, etc.) count:
B) No. As the titles indicates, it's "The October Horror MOVIE Challenge". TV movies (It, 'Salem's Lot, etc) should count though. No MOH since it's less than an hour. 60 minutes takes care of this.

5. Should horror documentaries (The American Nightmare, Boogeymen, Fear in the Dark, etc.) count:
A) Yes, but only if they're at least 60 minutes

6. Should we continue having two separate threads (One for lists, one for discussion):
A) Yes. It makes the lists easier to sort through.

Bluelitespecial

I would like to say that I hope Tv shows could be included, in the holiday challenge tv shows are included, and there are so many good horror tv shows out there I would be watching them during october anyway.

Chad

I'm glad you brought that up! I honestly believe I've come up with a very simple and reasonable solution that will satisfy both sides of the issue without comprising the original intent of the challenge. But, I'm not going to unveil it until the discussion thread is posted around the first of September in the usual fashion.

Sorry for the hold-up, but I don't think I could endure an additional 3 1/2 weeks of stress headaches.

<--- That's me last year trying to come up with rules that would satisfy everyone.

caligulathegod

Welcome back. I guess it's almost time to start thinking about this.

TV shows count on the other challenges because they needed to. There's no real "Christmas" genre. Those contests needed filler. Horror is a more well represented genre and, in my opinion, deserves to be kept "pure" and treated with respect. Of course, I still think treating them with respect and purity means actually watching them as one would have seen them in a theater and the way the film makers intended (i.e. no commentaries), but that debate will come.


*edit*
I nearly forgot, the primary reason we disallow tv shows is to discourage someone from just popping in Buffy the Vampire Slayer seasons and counting that towards the total. It's contrary to the spirit of the contest, which is to watch Horror Movies. One year, someone actually counted South Park episodes and WWE Wrestling. If someone isn't going to actually watch Horror Movies, why even bother?

Bluelitespecial

That is a very good point, all I was trying to say is when I did the holiday movie challenge last year tV shows were a part of my list as were everyone elses, shows like Supernatural is a good horror tv show that is a part of my halloween viewing and I would like to included it in my list. But maybe put a limit on the number of tv shows on your list, or maybe they can only include hour long shows.

MovieExchange

Then once again, I have to ask - why are people voting "no" for TV series, but also voting to allow Masters of Horror? It's a TV series. For those that argue otherwise, there will be a "season 1" box set released in a few weeks... you can't claim that it's not a TV series when it's being released as a season set. What is the difference between watching 10 episodes of Buffy at 44 minutes each and 10 episodes of Masters of Horror at about the same length? What about hour-long episodes of The Twilight Zone? Why not allow two half-hour episodes to count as one movie in terms of viewing?

In the end, I think that all episodic TV needs to be disallowed. Made for TV movies like The Stand would remain.

Also, how about some feedback on my suggestion regarding minutes viewed? As I mentioned, early Hammer and Universal films were about an hour in length, so someone could watch a lot of those and come out ahead on the list of total movies watched, but still would have spent less time viewing than someone that watched mostly modern horror.

Mountain Biker

1. What should constitute a qualifying feature film:

80 minutes minimum

2. Concerning "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" being the one exception to the rules:

No. It's not a MOVIE. I'll still watch it but I won't include it on my list


3. Should commentaries count:

Yes.


4. Should television series (Buffy, Angel, Supernatural, etc.) count:

No. They are not MOVIES


5. Should horror documentaries (The American Nightmare, Boogeymen, Fear in the Dark, etc.) count:

No. They are not MOVIES


6. Should we continue having two separate threads (One for lists, one for discussion):

Yes.

The challenge is to watch horror MOVIES. I'm still going to watch some horror TV, but like ITGPCB, I will not include it in my official count. I'll probably just list them on the side.

caligulathegod

I'm actually torn on counting them, too, but I do believe there's a difference between a recurring series such as Buffy, Angel, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, etc. and Masters of Horror. Masters of Horror is a collection of short films commissioned from established Horror directors and presented by Showtime. It's closer to anthology series such as Twilight Zone and Outer Limits than to Buffy. Personally, I am for the exclusion of all films under 60 minutes, which would either include or exclude MOH episodes, individually. The general consensus seems to be to follow the rather archaic and arbitrary Academy length of 40 minutes. If this is this is the case, I still believe it is against the spirit of the contest to just pop in a DVD of any television series and count that as multiple movies. I can't agree with the exclusion of Universal horror. They are quintessential Horror classics and defined the genre from silents through the 50s.

We post our lists for all to see. If someone is loading his list up with 40 minute "features", then we'll all know and can either respect or not respect the list. It's not really a competition so much as a challenge and perusing lists will make it obvious who's really meeting the letter and spirit of the challenge and who's just along for the ride. We had people who could only watch a half dozen films and those who surpassed 200. When there are participants who can "watch" movies 19-21 hours a day, every day (on weekdays, even), and somehow still attend school and jobs, then you aren't going to "win", anyway. It's best to just enjoy yourself and use your conscience and taste as your own guide.

advdfreak

I agree with everything listed here. I could not have put it better myself!

EdTheRipper

I couldn't agree more. There were people who'd managed to "watch" 60-odd movies in like 5 days. Always aroused my curiosity as to how someone could actually pull that off. There was one person who managed to average 10+ every day for the entire first week. There was another who stacked their list with Masters of Horror episodes and immediately followed them up by watching them again with the commentaries turned on. Now, granted, I had some days where I managed to watch over 8 but for the most part, I'd average 4 or 5 a day. I work full-time so that was an amazing feat for me. On my days off, I'd sit in front of the tv all day. I'd watch movies into the middle of the night after arriving home from work. It was a lot of fun, but watching that many was a challenge. I don't see myself coming anywhere near what I managed to watch last year. I'm just gonna have fun and go with the flow.

Giles

1. What should constitute a qualifying feature film:


A) The current 40-minute rule -- The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the American Film Institute, and the British Film Institute all define a feature as a film with a running time of forty minutes or longer.



2. Concerning "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" being the one exception to the rules:


C) Enact the three "wild cards" option as brought-up by caligulathegod.





3. Should commentaries count:


C) Yes, but only one viewing is allowed: Either with a commentary or without.




4. Should television series (Buffy, Angel, Supernatural, etc.) count:


B) No. As the titles indicates, it's "The October Horror MOVIE Challenge".




5. Should horror documentaries (The American Nightmare, Boogeymen, Fear in the Dark, etc.) count:


A) Yes.




6. Should we continue having two separate threads (One for lists, one for discussion):


A) Yes. It makes the lists easier to sort through.

Bandit03

1. A
2. C
3. A
4. B
5. B
6. A

NinePoint

I agree with this completely as well.

Giles

I'm still curious why people are so opposed to the 40min- designation of 'short film'. There a quite a few 1950's horror films that fall in between 40-60min to disqualify them is very unfair. To make the rule that a "film" is 60min (at least) is an obvious and blatant way to disqualify the tv shows that sometimes pops up on some people's lists. There should be some rule that allows for made for tv programs like the Masters of Horror series to be included, but excludes series like Buffy, Supernatural, et al. like:

"Made for tv programming is allowed (40 minutes +), but series that have reaccuring characters, story plotlines are not allowed."

just my two cents on the subject.