Isn't the perpetual and widespread argument that post-Horror trumps all other arguments - a wind-down after scares, gore and violence. Detox, almost.

I can see the case for switching them, though.

Love:
Animation
Sci-fi/Fantasy (I think I may be contractually required to love these as I host them... )
Holiday (I love holiday sappy movies. I don't even watch that many TV shows for the challenge, but stick with movies. With Hallmark making a ton of them every year, I DVR them and binge throughout the challenge on them. The ones I don't watch, I keep on the DVR till next year and finish them up then. I'll even go through the stores during Nov and Dec and just blind buy as even when they are awful, they're so awful they're good. Totally a guilty pleasure for me.)

Like:
TV on DVD
Academy Awards
Action/Adventure/Crime
Comedy
MYOC (I go back and forth on this one, participating wise. I sometimes take it slowly as it's a bit of a break since I do participate in the majority of the challenges and let's me generally watch what I'm in the mood for rather than trying to watch something that is related to the current challenge)
Criterion (I like this one because I have found a few movies I love that I would never have found before, but definitely felt going into it that it was going to be a lot of pretentious films. That is true, I've definitely found a lot more films I've disliked than liked. However, the ones I have loved, more than make up for it.)

Dislike: Horror (I know, I know, please don't shoot me but I am not a horror fan in general and the one time I participated I did not feel like the Halloween type shows and movies I was watching fit in with the rest of the people participating)
Historical (Never did figure out what was ok and what was discouraged)
Drive-In

I've read this four times and I'm still not confident I understand it.

"WHEN" is as important as "IF". You don't often decide to creat first and then thrash out the what and when second: it's a bundle.

"Should there be another challenge?" is not Yes/No, it's "yes, IF" or "no, BUT". Flawed options will create arguments second. Particularly since the whole debate is being driven over not by suggestions and contrary opinions. This now smacks of change for change's sake, rather than the initially-mooted idea of adding a specific challenge at a specific time.

I like to think that Dimension X was critiquing your math/science rather than just acting out of a sens of personal pride. Certainly that's how I read - and agree with - it.

Framing criticism as self-criticism doesn't absolve it from requiring accuracy or critiques. Numbers and statistics are notorious for their ability to prove any argument under different lights. You consider it a flop. I do not. Your opinion isn't necessarily more valid than mine.

Shall we dig through Horror threads and see how many comments are about eligibility? How many are criticising participants' choices, or noting competition deadlines? Can we weigh lengthy posts equal to single words; are tailored/quoted replies of more "community" value than the generic? Are discussions between two people over multiple pages better or worse than brief agreement from a dozen individuals? These are unquantifible, even philosophical debates.

And even if they were possible, useful or necessary, two cautions: it's all predicated on YOUR (albeit reasonable and tacitly agreed-upon) definition of the purpose of the challenges. Why not see them as communal space rather than conversation starters? Victorian Gentlemen's Clubs offer community and commonality while allowing/encouraging non-interaction; coffee houses fostered debate and intellectual stretching; pubs and clubs allow shared interests to lead to comversation or friendships. Is DVDTalk equivalent to an amalgam of these? Or "other"? Are the Challenges intended to foster a sense of community via discussion, or do they merely allow it as a side-effect to being a discrete collection of linked personal lists?

Do you feel part of a community? Do you feel less so in months you do not participate in challenges? More so when engaging in debate or agreement? etc

Which is still community discussion and interaction.

Auditing a thread (with an agenda, no less) is very anti-community building... it's literally (pun!) DECONSTRUCTION...

A) Who? Rejuvenating those here, or reaching out for new people? B) If upending causes disgruntlement and alienation in the engaged, wouldn't it be a wash even if there were additions..? All of which is guesswork and future-casting, but... treading lightly isn't a terrible idea. Or listening to dissenting voices.

How do you propose reaching them? Are any of them engaging in this discussion? Is there even a net gain amongst those here that another/new/different/revised challenge would increase engagement rather than get backs up..?

...is that not a perfect stopping point, then?!

I see where you're coming from.. I tend not to put a number on it. Two Weeks to watch SOME films. 30 is two a day, if you want a point to reach/exceed.

A minority of at least two.

I don't like that idea. At all.

Here's where I know we're two different types of people. I didn't post that just because you "maligned" "my" challenge (I stayed out of this thread, other than to thank one post, when you were maligning the challenge), but mostly because you maligned the MYOC participants when you condescendingly said
You talk about wanting to build a community, then belittle the efforts of 40+ people. That's not what I consider community building. Look, there are a few challenges that I don't like, but I don't badmouth them on this site, I claim a spot in the list thread and try to watch and list a few items during the month. Call me crazy, but that seems more community-minded to me than just cutting and pasting a post I wrote on some other site about a random movie I watched last night.
The tables were just the ones Trevor posted, slightly modified.

And yet you think you "screwed it up" by making it more inclusive and opening it up to more peoples' interests. If I were to try to psychoanalyze you, I'd say this is on par with your thinking that since you don't like the MYOC, then it should go away, regardless of what 40+ other people think (those same people you belittled earlier).
Your stats were ridiculous. The MYOC is pretty much on par with the majority of the monthly challenges that don't occur in October. If it drops to a low number of participants, I'll be happy to drop it.
I didn't read the fucking threads for those three years. Neither did Trevor.

Part of the reason behind that post was to point out how ridiculous it was just to compare numbers.
Why are those post any less "community-building" than talking about movies? I get you think reviewing is the gold standard of conversation, yet you cut and paste reviews from another site without taking any effort to modify it to this site, to this audience. (Okay, I'm assuming here, because I don't read overlong posts like that from anyone. If I were like you, I'd project my feelings about those cut and paste reviews and tell you to quit wasting your time posting crap no one is ever going to read.)

How is two guys talking back and forth more "community-building" than one person posting to the group?

I'm sure belittling peoples' "little challenge schemes" will make people want to stay around.

Funny, in May, there's a challenge where people come up with "something new and interesting" every year.

Can I somewhat tongue-in-cheek-ly suggest a compare-and-contrast with your comment on the 'Neverending' Challenge. Viz: "I use it to be "forced" into watching movies I've put off viewing for one reason or another."

I wonder if you might not be surprised regarding affinity and tolerance for many of the CC film if you 'forced' yourself to watch them... (Note "many," not 'all' of course.)

To each their own and all that. But that film is so, so clearly an outlier that using it to judge (or as a stick to beat them with) is clearly flawed...

And on a purely theoretical level, would you not agree that the CONTENT of the Armageddon release is still top-notch even if you hate the film? The theory and background and peripheral material stand apart from (as well as complementing) their releases. Even with Bay films.

I kinda figured I've been enough of a minority in the last few days of this thread that I *was* one of the dissenting voices! The occasion to reconsider the landscape of the challenges came up, and I've chimed in with what I think can reasonably and fairly be characterized as some unpopular views.

Regarding which theoretical group to try to court, I'd say presently active members. Placing the burden of attracting new forum members on challenge organizers seems unfair, even if it is ultimately in our own self-interest. As for how to try to engage them, I suppose I'd start with a thread to ask why they have so far abstained from challenges. Feedback there could indicate some areas we've overlooked, or it could close the door and make clear that it's a lost cause entirely.

I do think that it's time we again revisited asking to have a Challenges sub-forum created, though. These threads all being in DVD Talk make them far less visible to those who frequent instead, say, HD Talk or Movie Talk. Being more conspicuous on the home page couldn't hurt, right?

Devil's Advocate says saying "sure" to the latter clears it out of the way, leaving time for the former...

(maybe)

People on the defensive feel bound to defend their choices to the time-based exclusion of discussing them...? I certainly see your frustration, but blithely okaying Abbey or Mad Men would surely foster discussion about them without the associated cloud of defensiveness. Or at least "hopefully".

Your stated goal is to get people engaged and talking.

You said you sit out the Holiday Challenge.

Without calling that hypocrisy (because it isn't), I wanted to muse over whether people are more likely to chat and discuss if everything went through upheaval, or whether it isn't more wise to try and foster engagement within existing confines.

Don't throw the baby out because you feel there are better options - perhaps new challenges would get greater participation/engagement. Or perhaps some people just aren't ready/able to engage. A personal choice, and nothing wrong with that.

Sitting on the sidelines decrying a lack of participation (spelled correctly) should be self-evident, if arch and mildly rude. There's an element of 'armchair umpire' in some of the thoughts here (me too) - we all know how best to fix things from the outside. But fixing them from the inside is surely more useful and helpful - get in the middle of things and stir up debate; don't sit things out and complain. Engage rather than just shouting into the wind. Ask questions and react to the answers.

Also, while it's obvious that challrnges less appealing to each of us are the easiest to sit out, it's arguably beneficial to branch out and watch new things - if you do the Criterion Challenge, don't (just) watch the same 20 films.*


*Obviously it's not as easy as that. I know!

I enjoy reading that list. The reviews are always short and to the point, with no spoilers. to everyone there.


I'm glad someone got that. I don't even like to call it "my" challenge. That's the one challenge which literally belongs to the people who participate each year.

If you read his posts though, it certainly reads as if he thinks it is.
I'm just going to save myself time and say "This." You said all this much better than I could.

Holy moley, and I get busy at work for a few hours and the discussion explodes. Wow, too tired to multi-quote and reply to the nearly 100 things I thought as I read everything.

But one thing is certain, I freaking love you guys and girls, and love that people care about the community and this little favorite part of it for me. But while passions are inflamed a bit (it appears), as a birthday present to me can you all promise to at least virtually hug it out when this is over?

I'm leaning towards thinking we don't need to change anything, and certainly shouldn't tweak any Challenge to make it less inclusive. Let's just work to make what we have better and more inclusive. Sure, you can stress just war western and docs, or stress one of the three each rotating year, but if I want to watch sports and costume dramas in my personal HA list, then leave me alone. I'd rather be inclusive of the outliers amongst us even if the main group stress something "more pure" or whatever.

I should probably stop rambling, about 8 hours of sleep the last 72 hours. Did I already say I love you guys?

Well put.

Sorry, Trevor. I finally got a few hours off, and-

-that. Although I've had nearly 10 hours sleep.

I got that, and appreciated it as an amusing - and heartfelt - rejoinder.

If I had had the time, I'd have probably done something similar (I like statistics), so I also appreciate you saving me the hassle..!

Agreed on the first part (for ease as much as anything), and ambivalent on the second. I do think it might be worth raising as a question during October, to try and gauge opinions from challenge-amenable souls.

Though I imagine the two prevailing answers would be (in this order) "I (only) like Horror (enough to participate in a structured challenge)" and "once a year is enough (for reasons of time/ability/other)". Plus, prizes.

Maybe so. Certainly I miss a lot by only visiting certain areas - perversely (from a community standpoint) because my time is limited, I focus almost exclusively on challenge threads (and then not as much as many), meaning I miss dozens of other potentially interesting things... including some deals I'm very unhappy to have missed.

I want to ramble off-topic. Ignore me if you like.

Thank you.
I believe this has been asked in the past, and those were the prevalent answers.

Thanks to GoldenWheels, pretty much any challenge has prizes that wants them. In July, he was more than generous and even through in a BUNCH more than usual...nice items too.

There we go! Your conclusion should be simple, get rid of the Historical Appreciation Challenge, which you clearly admit does not generate the "community spirit" you're looking for, and make June "Drama" month! Well deduced!

Discussion over.

For those of you that have little interest in the currently running Criterion Challenge because you'd end up watching the same 50 movies every year, I think you're missing the point of that challenge. Travis has clearly stated that it is not about watching as many films as you can, but rather about digging deep and analysing a few films. That is what makes Criterion so great! They give you a lot of meat to dig into. Rather than fly through all your Criterion worthy films in the month, the point is to gorge on the special features of just some of them, the rest will still be around for next year.
I tend to pick up a few new ones over the year, and typically I never get around to watching them until September comes along and I can catch up on them. The last few years I've only watched a dozen or so in the month. I still have many of them on my shelf I haven't watched yet. I don't see the Criterion well running dry for me for many years. And yes, I'm even going to watch Armageddon one of these years!

That is entirely correct. I usually only shoot for a few movies that have a lot of supplements, especially a commentary or two. It is my cooling off period before tackling the Horror Challenge. I guess I am fortunate because I have a ton to choose from at our public library system.

Oh, I know. Goldenwheels is on a par with Chad for Epic Challenge Heroism.

The Horror prizepacks are a step beyond, though... (plus, I wonder how widespread knowledge of non-horror prizes is.. and selfishly, hope it's low. )

Booo...

I vote using the lit-crit argument "death of the author" as a reason to dismiss such anti-historical negativity from the challenge's former host...