I have some favorites that I can always watch again. But I agree that it doesn't have the same effect as the first time I watched it.

I have no more of a problem rewatching horror movies than I do rewatching any other type of movie. Most of the best movies, horror films included, actually benefit from repeat viewings. Just because one knows "all the screams" in a film doesn't necessarily rule out further enjoyment, any more than knowing all the songs in a musical makes it less entertaining.

I have no problem watching many horror films over and over again. It's odd, but one thing that makes it easier for me to do so is the shorter run times. There are many classic films that deserve to be watched repeatedly, but it's harder to make time for them.

I also have no problem rewatching horror movies over again.

Neither do I.

Horror movies are as much about atmosphere as they are about jump scares or even plot so knowing details in advance won't discourage me from rewatching. I'm not afraid to admit that I still get scared (re)watching Blair Witch Project at night.

However, please do not ask me to re-watch Killer Tongue.

It's like any other genre. Some films are rewatchable, some are not. Knowing what happens makes no difference other than the first viewing possibly having more impact.

I've seen my share of movies that were good the first time because I was watching a mystery get solved, or something else, but at the end I know that, while it was good, I'd never want to watch it again because the only good thing about it was watching it unfold. Knowing what happens would make it painful to sit through it again.

Does that make it a bad film? I don't think so because I would still recommend it as a rental. But knowing what happens can turn some movies into something unwatchable.

And the choir said, "Amen!"

Everyone would have loved The Killer Tongue if it had had a better transfer.

It was also the most talked about subset pick that year.

That's pretty much it for me. I watch horror to get scared and watch things unfold. Once I know what is going to happen, the suspense and scare kind of fades away.

I'm also in the camp of 'horror is like any other genre, rewatching is not a problem'. Some films don't stand up, some do. Makes no difference to me whether they're horror or not. Horror isn't a special genre that needs to be treated differently. I don't think it means a film is bad because it doesn't stand up on a rewatch though because it's not just the film that's being assessed, it's you as well. Maybe it works for you in a certain mood/at a certain age/etc, and doesn't now, it might not necessarily be just that the film doesn't work on a repeat viewing. Although sometimes certain films that rely on suspense and not knowing what's coming next might be a letdown on a rewatch, I think that would mean the film is probably bad because it doesn't offer anything else except cheap shocks.

Keep telling yourself that, Ben, if you makes you feel better.

I will state for the record that if the film had come out in Super Feel-a-Vision 3000, where the characters were actually alive in my living room and I was able to interact with them in real space...I still would have hated, hated, hated the film.

Just as Kim is the most talked-about Kardashian.

It might be fun to have a 'guilty pleasures' theme day where people pick maligned films they like... stuff like Killer Tongue, etc. The subset pick could be whatever critically panned movie someone enjoys.

I'd say universally panned by critics and audiences. If you just go off a critically panned film, that would mean The Shining and Night of the Hunter would somehow be in a group labeled "guilty pleasures" and there's nothing to feel guilty about liking either of them.

This doesn't sound fun to me at all. Generally speaking, bad movies are considered to be bad movies for a reason. As it stands, there are always a handful of stinkers in the subset films list, and to add one more to that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

There ARE those of us who actually prefer good, scary, thought-provoking horror films to the swill churned out by Charles Band, Lloyd Kaufman, and others of their ilk. The year that Killer Tongue, The Lords of Salem, Shakma, Jack Frost, The Devil's Carnival, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and Blood Diner were all subset picks nearly caused me to abandon the Challenge for good. While The Nightmare Before Christmas isn't awful, it also isn't a horror film nor is it the type of film that I want to watch on Halloween night. That's when we should be pulling out the super-scary big guns...not an animated musical.

Please, for the love of all that's scary, let's put the "horror" back into the Challenge, and leave out the "horrible."

I've always considered the Challenge as much a celebration of Halloween as horror; I mean why have a horror challenge in October and ban Halloween material just because it doesn't have a horror genre label? After all, without Halloween would we even be having an horror challenge during October? I think the gist is -- watch what you want (as long as it's horror or Halloweeny); you don't have to be a slave to the checklist, subsets, theme nights, etc...

^ Exactly. A beauty of the Challenge is that one can choose to watch what they want.

If I want to watch nothing except family animated Halliween specials, my list is just as valid as someone who only watches (what they consider) 'real' horror.

Coyote, who said anything about banning Halloween material? You're creating an argument where there isn't one. If you re-read my post, I didn't mention ANYTHING about Halloween whatsoever, except that I don't want to watch animated musicals on Halloween night.

My point is simply that if you're going to have a horror challenge and CALL it a horror challenge, it should feature films that are actually horror movies...ESPECIALLY in the subset picks and DOUBLE-ESPECIALLY on Halloween night. Since you seem to have locked your focus on The Nightmare Before Christmas, I absolutely agree with you that it's got a Halloween theme; however, another of the rules of the Challenge is that we should only be counting films that have a horror "tag" in IMDB or AllMovie. The Nightmare Before Christmas doesn't. I have absolutely no issue with anyone watching the film and counting it if they so desire; my issue is with such a film being the "required" (if you're following the subset film rules) film for Halloween night when it's NOT A HORROR FILM. It's not like that's the only film out there with a link to Halloween.

Admittedly, I don't like the film. I do, however, LOVE another, similar film that was a subset film, ParaNorman. Even though I love it, I would have been upset if it had been chosen for Halloween night. If I'm alone in this, I'll gladly STFU and deal with it, but surely there are other Challenge regulars who are also not keen on the idea of having non-horror films not only included but also slotted for Halloween night.

I convinced a friend of mine to do the Challenge one year, and he was so exasperated by the lack of what he deemed "real horror films" that he hasn't come back. I'm not that strict in my definitions, but I definitely get his point.

And to address your comment that no one has to "be a slave to the checklist, subsets, theme nights, etc.," again, you're absolutely correct. But if you take out those components, it becomes less of a "challenge" and more of a "maybe I'll watch a few things this month."

Trevor, no one is saying that your list would be less valid. As I said above, though, watching ONLY what you want to watch takes out the challenge component and makes it more of an endurance test. One of the best things about the Challenge is the discussion of the subset film of the day, and if you're not watching those films, you're not participating in the discussion...and then what's the point of getting together to do this with other people? If all you want to do is watch family animated Halloween specials and not bother with subset picks or theme nights, why would you participate in the Challenge at all?

I respect your passion, but the themes and subset picks and checklists are completely optional. The person who does all of them and the person who does none of them are equal Challengers.

All that I'm personally concerned about is that, even though "the #1 deciding factor regarding what counts is you and you alone" (as Chad says in the first post every year), all of the subset films should be tagged as horror films, as this IS a horror challenge.

If YOU want to count anything else, go for it...but to make all of the Challengers bend to any one person's definition of horror is wrong. That's why we fall back on AllMovie and the IMDB.

If you wanted to count Meet Me in St. Louis on your list because of its Halloween scene, you have every right to do so. However, I don't think that, if I choose to participate in the optional lists, I should be REQUIRED to watch that particular film for the Challenge, as it's not listed as a horror film on either IMDB or AllMovie.

I could not begin to care less what's on YOUR watched list, but please don't make ME compromise the stated standards of the Challenge if I choose to follow the guidelines to the letter. I shouldn't be punished for following all of the suggested rules any more than someone should be punished for NOT adhering to the guidelines.

That's all that I'm trying to get across.

By the way, I thought that last year's Challenge was the probably the best I've participated in--the subset picks were, for the most part, excellent. I had my second-lowest total ever, but I enjoyed the Challenge more than any of the others. Zero complaints from last year's Challenge, and it was a joy that no Troma or Empire/Full Moon movies showed up. I hope that this year is even better.

I'm assuming the friend was just watching the "film-of-the-day," but even then, I don't know how he could say there was a lack of "real horror films" in that list. Too bad he's gone and can't explain himself.

There's a whole lot of discussion that goes on in the main thread too, not just in the subset threads. I only watched a few of last year's subset films, and I don't think I ever got around to posting in any of the subset discussion threads. I actually think the best thing about the challenge is to watch a bunch of horror flicks (or what you call "an endurance test"). Reading what others think about films, and getting suggestions for stuff to watch, would be my second and third favorite things about the challenge.

Maybe I mis-spoke because I do agree with your point. The idea behind a "guilty pleasure" theme might be to select a 'cult' movie that someone sincerely enjoys or considers good despite having a poor reputation. I'm not saying anyone should go out of their way to pick crap, that would suck. While filth like Killer Tongue or even Pumpkinhead (I hate Pumpkinhead) should never intentionally be inflicted on anyone I'd be curious to see under-rated films of merit. Some of the subset films I've enjoyed the most have been stuff like Here Comes the Devil, Sauna, Eyes of Fire, Lake Mungo, Salvage, Burn Witch Burn, etc - stuff that's not necessarily a mainstream horror staple and might get mixed reviews but still ends up being sincerely good.

Either way, there are likely better theme days we could go with so whatever works.

When it comes time for people to suggest subset picks isn't it fair game for others to object if a suggested film is not horror?

People say the subset, etc is optional and that's true but it'd be a bummer if participants drop out because the films are frequently weak and/or irrelevant; although I don't think that's the case very often.

I think a challenge for something like it's so bad it's good or audience panned movie would be fun. I mean, we all have our own likes and dislikes. Seems like you don't like Lords of Salem. While I find that towards the end it did fall apart, it still had some creepy elements to it, an interesting story, and the best sound ever in a film. Plus, Puppet Master 3 kicks ass. Hell, the big 80's films (like Nightmare, Friday the 13th, etc) are shitty. People shit all over Blair Witch and Scream, but are those films any better? Kick ass bad guys, but the acting is just shit.

Plus, Nightmare Before Christmas is actually a great film for Halloween. The entire movie is basically about Halloween and throwing that style into Christmas. On Halloween, there isn't a lot of better films to pick regarding a Halloween theme (especially since many probably already have been picked before).

And the real challenge is hitting 100, I think. Towards the end one probably gets tired and loses interest. If one were to just watch one film a day following the subset, that itself is pretty easy. But to watch 100 films in one month, that is a challenge.