I can't either, but when peeps get all anal and pissy in THIS thread, the challenge gets tired real fast.

My preference is probably to just keep everything loose and fun, and not have all this silly debate about running times and genres. And to not have prizes that encourage people to just crank out numbers. Have it a challenge to hit 100, and nothing over 100 is encouraged or rewarded.

As a suggestion for television/docs, what if it was determined that if something has received a stand alone DVD release, and meets an approved runtime, then it counts.

This creates an obvious difference between MOH and something like X-Files.

Then if you want to watch and count other docs or tv shows you have your wildcards.

As always, I will continue to watch Halloween related TV shows and specials whether they count or not. If the majority chooses to count them, then even better for me. If not, no biggie. It's not like I get anywhere near "winning" anyway. I just try to beat my previous year's goal.

Okay, I'm new and I've tried to research this movie challenge to understand it. The deal is, from October 1-31, we're supposed to watch as many horror movies as we can, and post a list of the titles watched in that time, right? There's some dispute over whether TV series episodes should count, and while I think I understand both arguments, I have a question. What about, say, the 2-disc set my wife and I have of all the Halloween episodes of "Roseanne?" Those were staples of Halloween back in the day, and we'll probably watch them anyway; I'd hate for them not to count.

Also, I have a question about duplication. I entirely understand and agree with the idea of not counting different cuts of the same film more than once, but what about a remake? For instance, my wife has at least two different versions of "Night of the Living Dead" and we have both versions of "Little Shop of Horrors." Should those be counted separately?

Finally, I have a few movies in mind, as I go through our library, and would like a ruling on them prior to October: "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," "Ed Wood," "The Minus Man," "Serial Mom" and "The Crow." I could argue for or against any of them, but I'll instead defer to the panel's ruling. Not looking to start any kind of thread-disruptive war or anything, just want a head's up.

Remakes are fine. They have different casts, different directors (with a couple exceptions), different crews, etc. They are different movies. We're talking stuff like director's cuts where they add in 5-10 minutes (or even 30 minutes) to lengthen the running time of an existing movie or resolve a ratings issue. Dawn of the Dead Cannes Cut, Theatrical Cut, European Argento Cut, are all the same movie. They are different versions and may even be different experiences to those who watch them, but they are still essentially the same film. Now, Zach Snyder's remake is a completely different film.

I would allow all those films listed. Roseanne would count towards the Wild Card. There are three wild cards (which we can expand perhaps for each level of viewing) which are for non-conforming material. They are to add variety.

Yeah, that's why I would open up the definition. If you choose a film that isn't quite Horror, then you are just cheating yourself. Genre arguments are too subjective. I just think it is more important to watch actual movies.

If it's the "October Horror MOVIE Challenge", it should be movies. No TV shows. And movies should be 80min or longer.

If you're going to include TV shows and all that, just call it the "October Horror Challenge" or "October Horror DVD Challenge". Calling it a "movie" challenge and allowing more than movies is false advertising and misleading.

That worked because the name of the challenge was the "Summer Sci-Fi Challenge" and not "Summer Sci-Fi Movie Challenge".

As mentioned already, this would eliminate the majority of horror films from the 1930s. 60 minutes or more is fine.

We can't do that. No way we are going to have a rule that excludes Frankenstein, Dracula, Bride of Frankenstein, The Wolfman, or even such modern fare as "Them" (AKA Ils). An hour will exclude all but real films.

We actually don't allow TV shows(except for made for TV features), but October is a month where people might want to watch Horror related cartoons, TV shows, specials, etc. We don't include those in the challenge but as a concession we allow three non-movies to count. Wild Cards are just for fun and to prevent arguments.

Definitely. Any horror challenge that excludes the absolute classics of horror like the various Dracula, Frankenstein, and Mummy films deserves to be scuttled before it even launches.

I haven't checked, but if any of those films are even 40 minutes they need to count. The Academy rule of 40 minutes is fine. How many sub 60 minute films are there anyway?

I'll say it again. We need to move away from any silly bickering over numbers, either in volume or minutes. It's a challenge, not a contest. If the goal is 100, then everyone over 99 is an equal "winner". Anything over 100 should not be encouraged, desired, or rewarded.

Daughter of Horror was the only one on my list last year, clocking in at 55 minutes.

Agreed. Looking at some films from Universal's Bela Lugosi Collection:

Murders in the Rue Morgue - 61 mins
The Black Cat - 66 mins
The Raven - 61 mins

How do we call out those who post watching more movies in a day than there are hours in a day?!??!!? It's happened!

There's like less than a handful of theatrically released sub-60 minute films. Even Daughter of Horror was actually more than 60 minutes, but some of the footage is lost or was censored. The Academy rule is STUPID and archaic. No film in the last 70 years was going to get distribution unless it is at least 60 minutes. Also, there is no way there would ever be a 45 minute film in contention for an Academy Award in the feature category. Besides, we're talking Horror, not Academy Award films. I can point to half a dozen other film bodies that have different rules and none of them think 41 minute films are "features".

There are no sub 60 minute films (for all practical purposes). A 60 minute rule automatically defines the film as a feature, so it is efficiency in itself. A 40 minute rule means TV shows would count, unless we made specific rules against them. We don't need a bunch of rules. If we make this full of rules and exceptions and this and that, it's going to turn people off. It's supposed to be fun and it is supposed to be about the movies.

It should be we watch movies, otherwise known as features, which must be at least 60 minutes and must be Horror. The definition of Horror is in the eye of the beholder. If you believe Fatal Attraction is Horror, then count it. If you have a question as to whether something is Horror, then ask the thread. Only in extreme circumstances should a film already in a list be challenged. Also, if we are going to watch movies, then let's watch movies. Horror movies in particular are intended to evoke an emotion, be it fear, disgust, discomfort, or just old fashioned thrills. You do not get that from a commentary. Have some respect for the genre and watch the films as intended. It's a movie challenge, not a "I want acknowledgment for every piece of entertainment I expose myself to" challenge.


There was a rule we had for the Sci Fi challenge that can be adapted to this challenge. There are several Horror Mini-series, such as Frankenstein the True Story from the 70s, The Shining, The Stand, and others. We allowed those to count "per night" of their original broadcast. The Stand was presented over 4 nights, so it counts as 4 movies. We're not going to allow in TV shows under 60 minutes (actual minutes, not 48 minute "hours"), so the rest of that rule (two episodes of a TV show counts as 1 title) won't come into play. Sci Fi is kind of obsessive anyway so it's almost fitting that we had lists with over 100 entries and not 10 titles among them. No one wants to see Buffy the Vampire Slayer listed 7 straight seasons in the Horror Challenge. I think we should allow the longer part of that rule so we can watch the longer mini-series and have them count. We should do anything we can to encourage the watching of longer forms otherwise people will be too tempted to fill their lists with short filler.

Most importantly, be flexible. None of the things I've suggested is going to hurt anyone if we follow them. Let's keep it fun and about the movies. Implementing the rules I've suggested should get rid of any bickering and should allow all of us to have fun. Majority rule always seems like a good idea, but sometimes it is better to work in the best interest of the challenge rather than appease the mob.

I must have said that in an old thread. I couldn't find it in this one. There's a couple lists in the SF challenge I'd love to criticize. ;)

That's one reason we need to purify the challenge. No docs, runtimes at least an hour. We had too many people surpass 300 last year. That means the challenge might have been too easy. We need to take out the loopholes.

300 movies in 31 days works out to about 10 movies a day. Horror movies tend to be short, so an average of 80 minutes each plus down time for swapping discs equals 14-16 hours a day. This is certainly possible. Those of you who are on a pace for 200 or more really need to take all doubt away and list the times you watched your movies (like I do on my lists).

I could settle for a 50 minute rule, if it was going to get changed at all, since I watch some independent stuff that doesn't get shown in theaters and could run a little under an hour.

I won't be watching as much as last year since I was getting up really early(3am) to fit stuff in.

Time shifters. Not to be confused with shape shifters.

I got to wondering...why is the target goal a number of titles watched, instead of time spent watching? I only bring this up because there's clearly a concern over "padded lists," and I got to thinking that this 100 titles goal actually discourages longer titles. Consider the following two examples:

MIN TITLE MIN TITLE
070 Frankenstein (1931) 115 The Ring
075 Bride of Frankenstein 128 The Ring Two
100 Son of Frankenstein 107 The Sixth Sense
068 Ghost of Frankenstein 113 28 Days Later
071 House of Frankenstein 130 What Lies Beneath
384 TOTAL MINUTES 593 TOTAL MINUTES

That's an extra 209 minutes I would have to fit in other titles if I went with the Frankensteins. If, however, the target goal was, say, 6000 minutes (an arbitrary number based on the criteria of 100 movies at a minimum of 60 minutes each), then I'm no longer penalized for the additional running time of the more recent films. What about the converse happening? It doesn't matter, because the goal is no longer number of titles, but rather number of minutes spent watching. And since the running times are pretty much standard information on DVD packages, it oughtn't be too hard a task to track and add those times.

Here's how I currently keep track of what I watch each month with the times included

okay, that's waaaay too anal


;)

^Let it be known now there's not a snowball's chance in hell that I'll be calculating running times for everyone in the results thread! Feel free to include it in your own post as well as calculating totals yourself ...I'm simply not going anywhere near that pain in the ass. Sorry. :D


That's always a tough call. Individually policing everyone does nothing but encourage unnecessary arguments to break out. The fact of the matter is, and I've said it many times before, this entire thing is based on the honor system and your actions are subject to your own moral code ...it's on your conscious. Unless it's outside the realm of human possibility and just blatantly obvious (as mentioned above) that's one thing, but even then you should tread very lightly and make sure it's a well-thought-out accusation before proceeding. In other words, do it in a respectful manner.


Alright, enough preaching...


And that's one of the reasons I think that this idea (other than eliminating them altogether) could help with that:

Also, not mentioning what the prizes will actually be until the end. That way a winner could end up with anything from a copy of the Carnival of Souls Criterion to

http://helium.lunarpages.com/~funky4.../igotarock.jpg

...a bag of rocks. OK, that would probably incur some very expensive shipping charges but you get the idea.


Wow, I'm taking a more lighthearted approach to this and already enjoying myself more.

Who says it's not possible. I've been known to watch TV shows at 1.5x or 2x via PowerDVD which means it's certainly possible to log more screen time than actual time...

Logging running times misses the whole point of the challenge. It's about the movies, not how much time you spend in front of the television. That's why I object to counting commentaries. It's all we can do to keep the DVD extra documentaries and interviews out of the challenges. Let it be about the movies, and nothing but the movies.

Will probably sound defensive here, but since I won the SF challenge I'll point out that I only averaged about 7.5 hours a day. Would have finished out of the top ten in these horror challenges.

Since it's a "Horror Movie Challenge"; movies count. TV shows don't.

Movies include direct-to-video and TV movies and mini-series, not just theatrical releases.

There's no point in increasing the minimum run time from what it's been for previous challenges.

I think we've all seen Masters of Horror by now, so don't include them this time.

Use your wildcards if you want to list something that doesn't fit. That's what they're for.

7.5 hours a day is about what I figure I averaged in last year's Horror Movie Challenge and I ended up in tenth place (with 159 movies). So with 165 movies, you would've been at least number 10.


Edit: Why are these challenges in DVD Talk and not Movie Talk?