Yes, IMDB lists it as "Comedy | Romance | Sci-Fi" which makes it eligible...

Here's a list of alternate names for the checklist of actors having several (I tried for 4 and higher) SF/Fantasy films to their credit:

Bruce Willis
Mel Gibson
Tom Cruise
Donald Sutherland
Brooke Adams
Leonard Nimoy (has *several* non-Trek credits although a few are early bit parts)
Veronica Cartwright
Roddy McDowall
Kim Hunter (2 non-POTA films so she's somewhat limited)
Michael Rennie
Dennis Quaid
Leslie Nielsen
Bruce Dern
John Candy
Sean Connery
Linda Hamilton
Arthur O'Connell
James Hong
John Lithgow
Ian McKellen
Kim Cattrall
Rip Torn
Sean Young
Clancy Brown

I didn't check against past lists but I believe many of these have not appeared on the checklist before. A few of these have more SF/Fantasy credits than I'd have originally thought.

Ah. I thought there was some Asian group going on.

Digging people up was always a pain since we don't really have a lot of people that just star in sci-fi or fantasy, like you do with other genres.

So true. That list I did is a good example as quite a few are better known for films in other genres and did only a handful of SF/Fantasy films. Sean Connery was a surprise as he's done quite a few SF/Fantasy films. There were other "big" names I wanted to include but found they'd only done a film or two in the genre. It seems that you have to go to the 50s and 60s "B" films to get any kind of recurring actor in the genre. John Agar is one such actor but he did many films in other genres too, as did lots of actors from that period.

My one proposal for change would be to switch to simple counting. I like to look at other people's lists, but I don't like to spend a lot of time deciphering them. It's easy to look quickly down the lists with only a single title on each line and see which ones are worth a closer look. I'm inclined to do all of my future lists this way, particularly since I've been keeping my old lists on my computer in the simple counting format anyway because of my preference for this method.

I've never done a checklist, but I'm wondering if I've missed something in the discussion. I haven't seen any mention of Will Smith, one of the most prolific and I believe the most successful star in these genres, as a checklist candidate.

I could do simple counting, much like the Action/Adventure Challenge. One item counts as one.

IMO, I consider Karloff and Lugosi to be more successful.

Heck, I consider John Agar and Richard Denning to be more successful--maybe not in boxoffice terms, but in terms of capturing the spirit of the genre. I'd rather see BRAIN FROM PLANET AROUS and CREATURE WITH THE ATOM BRAIN again than have to watch any of the MEN IN BLACK films--for the first time!

He's only done 8 SF films (3 of which are the Men in Black series) and 2 Fantasy. All of his films are of the summer blockbuster variety which receive lots of promotion and are "high profile" (so they make their money back) which is why you may feel he's more successful. Sean Connery has more SF/Fantasy credits and I'd not really consider him to be prolific/successful in the genres. I'm in the same camp as Ash Ketchum and Mister Peepers as far as other SF/Fantasy genre actors (although I have seen most of Smith's films including MIB1/2).

I like the last MIB better than the rest but the ending wasn't what I thought it'd be. I never cared for the first 2 and Independence Day sucked ass. I remember the hype and saw it on the very first showing. They were hyping it to be like another Star Wars movie.

I enjoyed the first MIB, not so much the 2nd, but don't believe either lived up to the promotional hype (much like all of his films).

I'm with you 100% on ID. I went with a cousin and our wives (which is amazing as mine *hates* anything remotely SF related). I couldn't decide if it was supposed to be funny but couldn't help laughing at most of it. They all looked at me like I was one of the aliens when I started a critical dissection following the screening. It most assuredly did not live up to the hype. I purchased a copy (very cheap) a few years back, watched for the 2nd time, and still didn't care for the film. It certainly tries to be likeable but there are just too many issues for me to give it any respect.

I kind of enjoy the first two MiB movies. I just look at them as fun, cheesy alien filled goodness. The third I have only watched once and remember being so so on it. Though, I do remember getting a free movie ticket from someone so that was a plus! I haven't picked that one up yet, but once it's fairly cheap and I come across it, I'll buy just because they are a fun popcorn movie.

I never did like Independence Day. Just thought it was fairly awful all around. I know we're talking Will Smith here, but I much prefer Mars Attacks!

Same here. One's fun to watch once in a while and the other is a chore 100% of the time.

Yep! I'm currently purchasing the Mars Attacks comic book series which is based on the 60s Topps cards. I really need to pick up a copy of the movie so I can compare. I recall liking it when I first saw it not long after it came out. It's good cheesy fun and not nearly as "bad" as the critics of the day made it out to be.

I really like Independence Day. I was twelve when I saw it so that probably has something to do with my feelings; the film seems made especially for preteen boys. I'm also a huge fan of Mars Attacks!. The cards were recently reissued with a new series attached. I was surprised at just how gruesome they are.

I collected the original Mars Attacks cards as a child. I was 8. We loved the gore. "Ooh, you can see his brains comin' out." But, most importantly, it was a great story of alien invasion of Earth and a subsequent counterattack. What an epic movie it could have been--and believe me, Tim Burton's comedy was NOT that movie. Of course, it would cost something like $500 million to make it properly today, but what a great movie it would be.

You should check out the comic. It's a very good story and is available in trade paperback if you can't find the singles or prefer that format. Issue #1 shipped with *56* different covers, each matching one of the original 55 cards, and was available in a box set that included a copy of each cover plus a Checklist Card Cover for the 56th (no I didn't purchase one of those - too pricey [$199] plus I'm content with a single cover when there are variants). Since issue #6 they've had a reprint card shrink wrapped with the comic. It's not the companion card for the issue, which would be very nice, but is still pretty cool. The last issue was #10 about a month ago. Issue #11 should arrive in the next couple of weeks.

Am I to understand from this that, as the rules stand now, I must use the checklist, and it's not just there as a fun extra?

The checklists are simply fun/challenging extras in every challenge; they aren't a requirement.

The checklist is always optional.

Oh, I see now. The point was about not having to combine shorter programs to make one entry.

Sorry for the confusion.

The checklists are just a way to help with variety, too. With Horror, I often ignore the checklist until the final week and I invariably have watched enough variety that it almost fills itself out. With the Exploitation Challenge, I have the checklist more to help define the genres. Only a handful of people have ever completed it.

Gotcha! That's actually what I thought until I misunderstood what was being said. Sorry about that, and thanks.

Been hankerin for some sci fi lately, so I decided to split up the rest of the month between content for the historical challenge and some sci fi, some days watching one, some days another. Today I am watching sci fi.

When I get to feeling better, I'll resume work on the checklist. Been feeling sick the past week.

I need to finish Game of Thrones season 2, but at this point I may just wait till July and get "credit" for it.