25th Hall of Fame

...I know you've been unhappy with some of the underage nudity in the films, I can understand that. So lets talk about this...

I'm not unsympathetic about this idea, I don't want people to not join because some extreme stuff is nominated. But I don't want to tie people's hands either.

I would hope people would just volunteer to think about their fellow HoF members when choosing a nom, so far what we've done has worked pretty good.

I just seen these two replies and they do point out the dangers of screening films...You're probably joking, but there could be people who feel films like those aren't worthy of an HoF. (I don't agree but if we screen then what gets screened out and by what method?)

There's another good point, some will NOT join future HoFs if we do screen.

Let's say we had some collective majority vote by the members, on what noms are allowed in, I bet my past nom The Music Man would get screened out as most of you hate musicals...and I can see that bias could be a problem with screening. It's a slippery slope.

I don't think there's a problem with any of the past noms. So I don't think we need a screening process.

I just see it as a form of censorship. People have choices, they don't have to join if they don't want, but nobody is going to tell me what's appropriate for me to watch even via group vote. There's things I don't like either but if it bothers me so much I can drop out as soon as the noms are revealed before anyone watches whatever piece of crap I nominated.

I second this. What's shocking and offensive to some might not be to others and vice versa. People can drop out if they don't want to watch a particular nom, or they can choose not to watch only that one, as it happened in the past, I believe. Those cases should be analyzed individually. But to screen noms... that's just wrong.

I've been thinking about this a little more since I read it earlier.

Ratings are often a little arbitrary and can vary between countries (what the US considers NC-17 is often just 14a instead of 18a here for example), but I think the content advisory could be a good compromise.

We could compile a list of what the most frequently objected-to content is, and participants can tick off any that apply to their nomination when sending it to the host. The warnings would be included when the films are revealed.

People would still be free to nominate whatever they fancy, while those who want to avoid certain topics can realize there might be issues before the HoF really kicks off.

__________________

I would say that anybody worried about watching something that they can't handle should do the research themselves.

I completely agree. The main problem with screening is that different people are offended by different things. There are people who are offended by blasphemy or what they perceive as anti-religious content and there are others who would be offended by pro-religious content. Some people are bothered by frequent strong profanity or graphic violence, while others have no issue with it. Some are sensitive to racist or homophobic stereotypes. Some are offended by LGBTQ characters or relationships. We don't always know what will offend who so I don't think we can realistically screen out all potentially offensive content.

I don't have a whole lot to offer beyond what has already been said, but I agree with the main consensus here. What bothers me may not bother someone else. There are things I try to avoid seeing in films, but I typically research the nominated films for these threads to make sure I'd be comfortable with watching them.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

*munches popcorn*

All this started over Themroc?

*munches more popcorn*
*notes it needs more butter*

I get the issue with the child nudity, so no complaints from me there, but we went from Themroc being a troll nom (which was purely speculative to begin with) and brought up what is, as Cricket had already suggested, dangerously close to censorship.

*finishes off bowl of popcorn*

The solution is pretty simple, and no it doesn’t involve passing judgement on whether a film is acceptable or not.
If any of the nominations bother you to any degree, feel free to sit it out. I don’t think anyone will fault you over your convictions.

*wanders off in search of more popcorn, preferably with more butter*

The fact that you don't put more butter on the popcorn and keep eating is low-key bothering me

Does anyone have a link to Sundays and Cybelle?

And what about Chimes at Midnight with a good sound quality? I just tried watching it and I can't understand a word.

I just messaged you a link for Sundays and Cybelle. If anyone else needs the link, let me know.

I assure you, that was remedied

I kind of agree with this. Which in the future may make me have to wait till the noms are unveiled before deciding to join. Which seems a bit assinine for being in 23/25 of them.

The only nom I'd say I had a legit beef with was In a Glass Cage for the record. I have no idea what to expect with Themroc.

With that being said though, I do think that people should make an effort to avoid nominating extreme films like Salo or Cannibal Holocaust which are likely to nauseate many people who watch them. Of course, it's impossible to account for everything which may offend someone, but we should at least make an effort to avoid the more obvious triggers (underage nudity, unsimulated violence). That way, we can increase the likelihood of providing a safe space for everyone who joins these threads.

Themroc might be seen as silly, or boring, but there's nothing shocking or gross in it. A couple of brief scenes of topless women, rather attractive women too It's nothing like In a Glass Cage.

If any of you pirates find a place where you can watch this for free and that has decent audio, feel free to share it. Unfortunately, I only know paid sources, which you can look up here.

It might just be the Shakespearean dialogue which is making Chimes at Midnight hard to understand. I recommend finding a version with subtitles.

I have a link that I can PM you. I haven't watched the movie yet so I don't know how good the audio is. If you can't find a link with good audio you can always add sub titles to it.

Got it, thanks.

Next time, I'll pick a movie with Al Pacino, Samuel L. Jackson and Gilbert Gottfried.