Trevor

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:

A) It (and only it) should be the one qualifying exception and continue to count as it's required Halloween viewing.

3. Should commentaries count:

D) No. Only films.

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.

The Bus

My thoughts.

Giles

that still doesn't seem fair.

kurupt

Chad

The one problem I foresee with that method is getting people to actually list the running times of every single film they watch, which is definitely easier said than done. Last year, despite posting several reminders, I had to go back and number the qualifying titles of several lists for those that forgot and that alone was very time consuming. I'm not shittin' on your idea, it's just a lot of added work to be done and I'm the guy at the end doing it.

Giles

if you want Chad, and if I have the time I can help you with that and give you an email re: all the films that have been watched and corresponding running times.

Giles

side comment:

Chad, can you also please for the month of October, post 'What Are You watching this week' thread going - it's my multimedia diary for the year, which I am adding to my 'Rank 'Em As You Seen Them Film List' ?

caligulathegod

We tried to think of films from any era ('20s and beyond) that were sub 60 minutes and only found one (Daughter of Horror/Dementia which is 54/57 minutes but still close enough to barely be the exception that proves the rule). Despite the Academy rules, a film must be at least 60 minutes to even hope for distribution as a standalone feature (and that is American/British Academy rules. French Academy says 58+ minutes and Screen Actors Guild says 80+ minutes). Lots of features were released in the 30s-50s that were barely over an hour for double features (allowing time for cartoons, shorts and newsreels) but we were hard-pressed to find any under. I personally believe the Academy's rule is incredibly unfair. If someone makes a film about 45 minutes long, it then becomes forced to compete against Marty Scorsese and Meryl Streep-type studio films? None of the Universal Classics are less than 60-61 minutes. Even the Ed Wood-type poverty row pictures were 61 minutes plus (they even mention it in the Tim Burton Ed Wood movie-they have to fill out Glen or Glenda with stock footage to get it up to an hour).

We allow three wild cards if someone wants to watch a shorter film. I don't believe in limiting what is used as a wild card, but I could see a prohibition (or discouragement) of using wild cards on more than one episode of a TV show of a particular type. For example, someone could use the wild cards to watch a Buffy episode, Charlie Brown Halloween, and Vincent (which is going to be with the theatrical 3-D Nightmare Before Christmas this year-yay) but not three straight episodes of Buffy.

I'm totally against a cumulative time count, though. I see this as more a variety challenge than an endurance challenge, although endurance does enter into it. Perhaps if it was a fantasy contest, with its typical epics, but Horror has always tended to be shorter.

Aron41

NoirFan

What about Tod Browning's The Unknown? The runtime of the surviving print is 49 min. Guess I'll use that as one of my wild cards.

EdTheRipper

I agree. A cumulative time count just adds too much work to it. In all honesty, I much prefer just listing what I've watched on a daily basis and being done with it. And the potential for arguments come in. Let's say IMDB lists Movie A as having a 94 minute running time while the dvd in my hand says it's running time is 97 minutes. I think that'll only serve to complicate the matter more than it needs to be.

TNAJason

I agree seeing as Masters of Horror while being 40-50 minutes are Short Films. They do not follow a theme. They are Short Films by Famous Horror Directors. Thats my two cents.

Julie Walker

I may have to sit this year out. Since I will be a full time college student. And too keep up on my homework and pass,so I can finally get out of college. I will have to use all the time when not in class or at work,to study study study.

I may get a couple films in,since even I will need some down time for fun. But I doubt I'll make it to 23 films this year. Which is what I got to the past two times we did this thing. And I never watch that many dvds in a month regularly!


But I won't give it up horror,and will be kicking it old school next week. I won the original Thorn EMI VHS of The Evil Dead on ebay today. And will be able to enjoy the film in its raw looking dirty grimy dark image,and mono mix again. The film actually terrified me in that form,and the restored VHS and dvd releases just took all the fear away,and made the film look fake as hell. So I can't wait to see it in that form again!

I also bought the Drive in Classics 50 movie pack for dirt cheap. So I'll get to check out a couple cut Argento films,and variety of drive in/exploitation titles I've always wanted to see. Then I'll probably sell that after viewing as many of the films in the set as possible.

So I'll pretty much start watching a few films now,and then pretty much have to stop once school begins at the end of the month.

Shack

I'll agree too. Anything that involves more statistics and potentially more arguments will just make the challenge more complicated and less enjoyable. Tallying up minutes makes the whole thing more about hours watched and less about the movies, at least for me. I did like what was dubbed the 'horror yahtzee' of last year, though, as its variety added to the challenge, and people could choose to do it or not.

caligulathegod

IMDB lists it as 62 minutes, only 49 minutes seemed to have survived. So I wouldn't say that it is an exception either. Of course silents really have no run time, just film reel length.

I agree that it would be a good choice for a wild card. As a thought, I offer up a compromise on silents (and silents only-I'll even include modern pastiches such as "Call of Cthulu"). Because of the very nature of NTSC/PAL video, it is difficult (without re-authoring the film yourself) to view silent films in any speed other than how they are presented, which is usually modern sound speed. Back in the silent days, films were shot as 16-18 fps but were presented in varying speeds (despite how they might have been intended by the filmmakers-which wasn't always at camera speed). Perhaps a special exemption could be made for silents. I would accept silents at 40+ minutes as features (on account of rarity and historical importance). 90% of all silents are lost and I see nothing wrong with encouraging the viewing of our cinematic past. No one is going to load up on silents and even even if they did, good for them. I still bet the majority of features make it to 60+ minutes.

There's no money involved in this challenge, just the idea of getting people to watch as many films as possible. I only pro-offer a relatively strict definition of feature so that we are all on the same page and the the challenge is honest and "pure". As a reminder, I posted 4 simple "rules".

1. It must be Horror. Cross genre films, such as Alien, are allowed. If you have questions concerning a film being horror or not, bring it up for review.
2. It must be a feature: defined as 60+ minutes. Despite the American and British Academy rule, realistically, a film needs to be over 60 minutes to be distributed as a feature. I had originally exempted films prior to 1920 but might consider expanding it to include up to 1928. They must be 40+ minutes.
3. It must be a movie. TV shows with recurring characters are not allowed. It can be a film that has played theatrically, or was made for TV or direct-to-video. Also allowed are television miniseries, which are really just extended features that were split up and presented on successive nights. This would include films like Frankenstein the True Story, the Stephen King adaptations, etc. This would include feature documentaries. We are not including "making-of" type documentaries, such as those on special edition DVDs, or tribute documentaries on specific films or filmmakers, such as Document of the Dead. We do include documentaries on "true" Horror subjects, such as those 70s exploitation documentaries on Bigfoot, aliens, sharks (can't be "Shark Week" love-fests. We're talking the scare-the-shit-out-of-you docs), psychic phenomena, serial killers, or the Mondo films (such as Mondo Cane, Africa Addio, and Shocking Asia). Strongly encouraged are those that played theatrically at some point.
4. It must only be counted once. This goes without saying. The challenge is to watch 100 films in 31 days, not watch films 100 times in 31 days. You can not watch a film over and over and count that as multiple films. This includes watching a film, then watching it again with commentary soundtrack playing.

There are also allowed 3 wild card options. This would include any choice of film or short that does not fit into the primary categories (the "Horror" rule cannot be superseded, nor the repeat viewing) , such as Halloween themed cartoon shorts, specials. Last year, I suggested banning the recurring TV shows from this wild card option but I feel more inclusive this year. The wild card can be used for any horror related item, including Bugs Bunny cartoons, Roseanne or Simpsons Halloween episodes , X-Files or Angel the Series episodes, etc. The only caveat is that only one of each type can be counted.

In the interest of discussion, there is an open query or appeals process where participants can inquire as to the nature of a film they are considering viewing or have viewed. A case can be made for or against any film by posters. Final decision is left up to the questioner based upon his opinion of the answers given. In the case of a questioner disagreeing out of spite with the general consensus, then he will be up for public ridicule for including it on his list (see last year's ET the Extraterrestrial debate).

On commentaries:
The general consensus seems to be for including commentaries in the contest. I suspect it is because this is a DVD discussion site rather than a true film discussion site. The challenge presumes that we are watching movies for the sake (and love) of watching movies not DVDs and not to just pass the equivalent amount of time in the presence of the movie. Despite the general love of commentaries, those are meant as DVD extras material. They can be educational, entertaining, informative, etc. What they are not is the equivalent of watching the movie itself. You get no sense of the acting or the plot. Listening to a filmmaker (or historian) inform us how certain scenes were shot, or listening to cast members discuss how wonderful it was to work with their cast mates and what lovely experiences they had while making the film is not the same as watching a movie. If you are watching a film that you have just recently watched and can only bear repeating it if you listen to the commentary or if the film is so wretched that it can only be borne by watching the commentary, then pick another film. Since we are only allowing a film to be watched once, then why waste it on ancillary material? If it's a film you've seen multiple times and are so bored with it that you must watch it with the commentary to be entertained, then pick another movie. It's very easy and it's in the spirit of the contest to watch movies you haven't seen or classics you love, not to be bored and compromise the experience. Whether we make it an official rule or not, I hope to encourage as many participants as possible to avoid watching commentaries and watch the films as intended.

Chad

Appreciate it, but I've got to agree with the above sentiments of keeping it simple. Of course you're more than welcome if you really feel it's necessary ...I'd personally just rather not have to deal with the added headaches it's sure to bring.


Sure, no problem.

Darth Maher

Anyone else getting psyched????

EdTheRipper

I'm looking forward to it already. Starting to think about movies I'll watch etc.

Giles

I've got my film/goal list already printed out.

Darth Maher

I thought about doing a film list but there are too many factors that would have me deter from my list:

(in no particular order)

1. The kids
2. After work errands
3. The wife's TV viewing
4. The kids
5. The desire to "be" with the wife rather than watch a movie.
6. My constantly changing mind.
7. The kids
8. The kids
9. The kids
10. The kids

My realistic goal is to watch something Halloween/Horror related each night, whether it's a full on movie or a Roseanne Halloween episode.

I haven't decided what my actual "movie" goal is for the "October Horror Movie Challenge".

EdTheRipper

I didn't set a goal last year and I'm not setting one this year. I just aim to watch as many movies as possible and just enjoy myself doing so.

Chad

Very much so!

Mine is still a work in progress. But, I can say for certain that quite a few of the upcoming 9/11 releases will be included.


BTW, I've almost got the rules/discussion thread ready to go and will try to get it up by the 1st.

Darth Maher

Last year I tried to do a Dead-A-Thon (the Romero movies and their remakes), but only managed to watch NOTLD. So much for planning ahead!

DVDMagic

Participated in last years one for the first time and enjoyed it a lot and am looking forward to this years challenge. I'm going to wait for the final rules to be posted before deciding on how to go about deciding what to watch. This is where Netflix will come in handy

speedyray

I will take a run at it again, but scrap the goal of 100. My goal this year will simply be all the unwatched horror I have and my favorites. I will also devote all my Netflix for that month to horror. I figure 40 or so will be my number this year.