Sounds great to me. It's now officially on the subset list, and the list is officially done.

That reminds me I need to update my old HD DVD.

I think the subset streaming list in post 379 is current, but please continue to give any updates.
https://forum.dvdtalk.com/13405760-post379.html

Is there anything else you need for the checklist, Chad?

Actors:
Bruce Davidson
Tyler Mane
Naomi Watts

Wow, I havn't posted in a week? I need to quit this job; it's really getting in the way of the important things. Great list, btw!

Well, aside from the missing actor, director, and writer spots, all 11 entries in the "Watch 3 films that you've never seen before" section need updating. Also the "appears on", "death by", and "classic" entries need a refresh.

And I'm currently trying to find some links for previous suggestions.

Suggesting 'Death By Explosion' for checklist; mostly because exploding heads is probably too specific and potential for cool pyrotechnics. I'm not sure there is a cooler way for movie death... other than melting, multiple syringes, and well... possibly others so maybe whatever other suggestions people have could be amusing.

Here are some death by explosion lists, which obviously have spoilers:
https://www.longlivethevoid.com/news/10bogusexpl
https://horrorfreaknews.com/10-best-...plosions/14653

We should drop the decades 1890, 1900, 1910 from the checklist because there are barely any films that survive from pre-1920.

Here are some more suggestions.

Actors:
Burgess Meredith, Oliver Reed, Bette Davis, Mia Farrow, Jamie Lee Curtis, the Anitas (Ekberg, Strindberg), Hayley Mills, Charles Durning, Sam Neill

Directors: Fulci, Sergio Martino, Bava, Polanski, Ron Howard, Larry Cohen

Writers: Poe, Cronenberg, Ira Levin

Watch 3 films that you've never seen before that:
--- Stars someone who is best known as a TV star
--- Features music by a rock band
--- Was made in the 1960s -
--- Features a family pet
--- Was written by Stephen King
--- Features snow
--- Has punctuation in the title
--- Was directed by Brian DePalma
--- Stars Jamie Lee Curtis
--- Takes place at a hospital -
--- Features a teen idol
--- Features an Ed and Lorraine Warren "investigation"
--- Appears in "50 Best Horror Movies You've Never Seen" (Shock Til You Drop documentary)


--- Death by: Fire

--- Classic Giallo

I second this. I recall when dropping pre-20s decades was suggested before there was some opposition. History is important but watching Edison's Frankenstein every year or searching up some hazy 2 minute early camera 'film' is awkward - there's really not a good variety of 'films' from these decades. Some will say you dont have to watch all the decades for checklist completion but I still think only decades with reasonable offerings should be listed.

I'm still cool with the pre-20s stuff. Probably because the 20's are so sparse (Nosferatu,Phantom/Opera, Häxan, Golem, The Monster, Phantom Carriage) in comparison with all the Méliès films to the (Available) multiple versions of Jekyll & Hyde from 1903-1914.

I do think the Rape/Revenge category is nearing it's end. Mostly because a majority of the titles are more Action/Crime-oriented than horror...Although I lucked out finding a Supernatural rape/revenge title for this year's challenge.

And I still say, if you don’t want to watch them, don’t. But if want to do a Challenge of entirely older-than-me films, I shouldn’t be locked out of the x of y decades category.

You can still have a challenge filled entirely with those films even if it's not on the checklist.

I'd also love for this to happen, though maybe just remove 1890 and 1900. I generally like to keep things in the challenge as they always have been, but I prefer to keep only features in the challenge, and there are just no horror features (that I am aware of) before 1910.

I concur. I really don't think we need those decades.

Well, guess I'll scratch the idea of putting this up for vote. Could use a bit more feedback though.

I agree with Gobear & Undeadcow. Those decades offer too little to merit inclusion, especially for those who do the challenge year after year. I recall last year (my first year) finding some old silent movie about a phantom carriage on YouTube, but other than being a one-time curiosity, it's not something I'd care to do every year.

How about a "pre-1930" category? The 1920s have some decent options, so that would give a more robust selection to choose from if that entire early range (1890-1920s) was in one bucket.

I was looking at last year's planning thread and it looks like the checklist was done on 9/23. Is that about the timing for this year too?

I have all my ducks lined up for the subset films, but I"m sure there will be a number of holes to fill in for the checklist. I'm hoping to have a solid list of what I'm watching, a shelf of blu rayss and links for the streaming stuff all ready to go! This will be my first year trying to do it all, and it def takes some planning.

Our farm is currently on the market. I'm hoping I don't end up needing to move in October, because that would detrail my movie watching in a big way.

I agree that those early decades (1890-1910) don't offer a lot of variety but I don't see any reason to remove them. It doesn't take that long to find and watch a short on Youtube and for those who have been doing this a while it can be interesting trying to locate something new. Keeping them keeps the history intact and they are optional.

Exactly. They can easily be skipped by those that want to do so. And having them as the skip-able x of y in the decades checklist makes that part of the checklist more manageable for those that don’t have a lot of time to search for things not in their collection; or conversely, the early decades make for quick check marks if you need help completing that part.

True. I can fill my quota from the higher decades. Guess it is really most relevant to those who feel a need to do everything on the list as opposed to the "legal" or bare minimum.

I don't see the harm in leaving them, as it's set up where you don't need to do every decade anyway.

Actually, thinking about it, getting rid of them causes people to lose 3 options, forcing them to have to do some of the later decades to complete the checklist. As of right now it's complete 8/13, whereas if we get rid of them it's 8/10. Doable, of course, but with a lot less wiggle room for those who aren't going for 100+ movies this year.

So yeah, I rarely use them, but I say keep them as options for those who want them.

I think merging them all into a pre-1930s category and/or reducing the 'required' number of decades are both good suggestions. The pre-1930s preserves the 'history' of things without expecting people to distinguish between say 1890s and 1900s offerings when film was in such infancy there's not a huge distinction. Those both seem like good compromises on 'fluff decades.'

Regarding pre-20s in 2015, the most recent year we have a results thread for, there were only 6 people tops (out of over 200 total) who even watched any movies before 1920s so the argument to keep pre-1920s films on the checklist is really just a vocal ~3% of participants (ok, my math is weird on that since not everyone does checklist anyway). Last year at a glance it looks like 4 participants made any obvious claims to watching anything from the 1890s.

I can understand the hypothetical with keeping early decades but ultimately if there is any checklist item that such a small minority even uses then it seems moot. The checklist should make people watch films they wouldn't typically, and I think it's usually effective for that just not in the case of 1890s-1910s decades because those are so widely ignored. Some make objections to ditching the pre-20s films, but largely don't watch them.

The decades thing doesn't bother me either way. I only used to watch the pre-1920s stuff when all decades were required for checklist completion. For the checklist now, I only count full entries toward anything, so I wouldn't even use a short unless it can add up to a full entry. Not saying that should be required, just how I choose to count things.