Next countdown vote (May '24)

Nah, I was just pointing out that everyone voting for "other" seemed to mean the same thing by it (until Holden).

And besides genres getting their fair shake, I am still skeptical that a Not On Previous Lists idea will even work, in practice. If a movie is too obscure or generally unliked to the point that three or four MoFos couldn't get it to rise to the top of a decade or genre list, how is that going to change all of the sudden? I can't see ANYTHING from such a list getting fifteen or twenty or more votes. If those titles could generate that much support they would have already made a previous list. You can tell yourself that multiple people didn't vote for your favorite Giallo zombie flick because it had to go up against The Godfather and Jaws on the '70s List and The Shining and Rosemary's Baby on the Horror lists and Seven Samurai and Parasite on the Foreign Films List and boy oh boy, if you just get rid of every other movie on the planet I know I could get at least two other MoFos to vote for it...what will that even prove?

Go back and read through the countdown threads for any of these lists. With every single one of them there are MoFos that state, no matter how famous or beloved a title is, they have never seen it, they hate it, or sometimes they have never even heard of it. If a Kubrick picture gets that kind of response, how in the heck do you think you are suddenly going to turn multiple voters into devotees of something that you yourself admit is obscure or weird or unknown?

It isn't the exercise of a MoFo List, which is looking for consensus from as many members here as possible. Make a thread devoted to your movie you admit nobody else likes or knows. Nominate it for one of the Halls of Fame. Get feedback on it that way, maybe even convert somebody. But throw titles we know damn well have no support on a weighted ballot and see what happens? Pointless.

Here are decade and genre lists that fifty or a hundred of this site's user's compiled. And over here...this list is stuff a pair of users liked. The top vote getter on this decade list had seventy users agree it is the tops. This one's top title...has four.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

I also think it's a terrible idea, and besides what Holden says, what will happen is that we will get a whole bunch of movies show up that are from the 2020s.

Holden's not wrong. I like the idea anyway because it would be incredibly interesting, but admittedly the version of it that works best is one where the watch period is way more freeform, and involves way more persuading people to watch things and campaigning for them. Maybe it's naive to think that could happen, who knows? But it would definitely necessitate running the voting period a little differently than before. It couldn't be everyone just going off and doing their lists without talking much.

I gotta say Holden Pike made a good case about doing Genre Countdowns first...before we dive into Not on Previous List countdown.

Once we cross over and start re-doing countdowns (redux) the chances of doing something new and fresh will diminish. If we rehash the 90s countdown, next people will want to re-do the 80s and so on and so on.

The Musical countdown would have a LOT of movies not on previous list, so it won't be repetitively boring. Redoing the 90s for a lot of us would be sending in basically the same ballot as before, why even bother. A Musical countdown offers a great chance to explore a very wide ranging genre, that many don't know much about. People seemed to enjoy the Noir countdown and yet Noir is a niche genre of very similar movies limited to only two decades. People said the Noir countdown wouldn't work, people said participation would be too light to warrant doing it...and yet it was hugely successful. A Musical countdown would be the logical next choice.

I voted for Musicals and Decade Refresh/90s. My reasonings for both...

I like Musicals and apparently it has been getting second place for a while now. I know that a lot of people aren't big fans, but then again, a lot of people aren't/weren't big fans of westerns or horror or film noir and we still went with it. As it has been said for other countdowns, this is the opportunity for those that are not that versed in the genre to wet their feet and hopefully take a full dive.

As for the Decade Refresh, even though I'm "new" here, I understand it was its turn last time, but we shifted to Noir/Film Noir. But anyway, considering that the 90's is probably my favorite decade for film, I would really love to participate in that.

As for the "Not on Previous Lists" thing, as big of a fan I am of "hidden gems" and "obscure recommendations", I think I agree with Holden's rationale here. Some of what I've said in previous discussions about this...

Maybe there is another way to exploit this idea, other than a countdown. Like Holden said, Personal HoF's are a great idea, but maybe there's a fun game that can be thought up for this.

__________________

I'm open to tweaking some rules or procedures (none of which are set in stone and most of which persevere at the host's pleasure because they have a good track record) to make a Previously Unlisted list work better around the margins, just for the record. I agree it would probably be unwise to pick that topic and then do absolutely everything the way we usually do it.

1990s comedies would probably be my other.

I voted for a redo of the Documentaries list

I could also go for not on previous list

You're despicable, (said in my best Daffy Duck voice).

I vote other...not on previous lists like so many other posters here...perhaps the solution to the possible issues is to make this into a decade qualifier.

But this is certainly better than the alternatives.

Perhaps this should be done decade style because the alternative of rehashing decade lists is what 10% difference in title and resorting of placement. When you only give people 25 slots cuts are made that's just the fact of the matter. I think most film fans have seen 20 films per year from say the 70's-10's.


Or conversely you would have more commercial films make these lists. I don't think a single Harry Potter film showed up on a list yet. How many Marvel films have shown up on these lists? What about animated films. But you have genres that have never been touched and won't be taken seriously by doing a list like this you would get a better idea of what direction future lists should go.

When was the last Hall of Fame you participated in? You don't know the list is going to be filled with esoteric choices they might be more commercial picks

I think if you set it up as a decade style list that won't happen. But you were also against the noir lists and didn't we end up with 200 films and decent lists at that. Do you feel like you were right to argue against doing noir lists?

Yes, but if you're going by decade anyway a full decade refresh will effectively do the same thing. As we have seen in other refreshes, the order changes, the top of the list might not seem radically different, but especially in the bottom half there are lots of switch outs. If or when we do a 1990s Refresh I am sure there will be anywhere from fifteen to twenty-five new titles, at least. More than 10%. That to me is a much more effective way of adding titles Not On Previous Lists by decade. Otherwise you essentially get a Top 101-200 List, and when we get to that point it is eliminating the point of consensus.

Harry Potter films have been eligible for the initial Millennium List, the 2000s (six of the eight), the 2010s (both parts of Deathly Hallows), plus either MoFo Top 100 (where essentially everything is eligible). No Potter film has made a list, yet. Which may tell you more about the lasting impact of that film series on MoFo voters than it does about the voting process or categories?

By "Marvel films" I assume you mean the official MCU entries and not the SONY Spider-Man or FOX X-Men franchises nor one-offs like Ghost Rider or Blade? The MCU titles have been eligible for the same lists as Harry Potter plus of course the Top 50 Comic Book Movies. MCU titles and superhero movies more broadly have made our lists.

We had an official MoFo Top 100 Animated Films.

So not sure what your point with all of that was?

The Neo-Noir one, just before we did the Neo-Noir List. You can make the Hall of Fame topics and parameters be whatever you want. If you want to run one that is 1990 Movies That Did Not Appear On Any MoFo List And Have a TomatoMeter Score Less Than 50 and Fewer Than 500 IMDb Ratings...you absolutely can. Knock yourself out. But to run an official MoFo List that way is, in my opinion, a huge waste of time and effort.

I was against doing a melded Noir and Neo-Noir List, with no distinction between the classic period and what came after. I think it worked much, much better the way we did it. So yes, I feel like I was correct to argue for the separation. Thanks for asking!

Musicals are beating Sports. This is a sad day for man.

Well it wouldn't be 101-200 because more than 100 films from the 90's made lists. It would be films that hadn't shown up on other lists and it would be an excellent barameter for genres we should focus on. A much better tool than the 10-25(25 is really optimistic) list you get with a typical refresh.



Could be...or conversely franchises split ballots. I believe I suggested doing a sequels list and you said it would be "pointless" because as you posted.

I'm not sure the Godfather Part II would win... The Silence of the Lambs, Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight, and Terminator 2 would all have an excellent shot. But while we'll know the top five that still gives us 95 spots that would be wide open. Isn't that better than the 10-25 the rehashes do?

I think every movie lover on the planet agrees that, in general, most sequels are hot garbage and most franchises get weaker as they go on. As a rule, of course. So that means our list will have the ten or fifteen or so sequels every movie lover over the age of sixteen agrees are quality....and then 85 more for the sake of naming them. The rest would be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

But if you think devoting an entire countdown to one of the laziest and least-attractive aspects of the modern movie business is worthwhile and fun, have at it! Enjoy. Gosh bless.

I went as I said I would, 90's and Musicals.

I'm happy with the decade/genre rountine and there's more than enough members who've not voted in the 90's one to do another even if there'd be alot of the same for a number of us. I'll go back to what I usually say, other than the fun of it, it's about representing the tastes of the forum for me and, while I wouldn't support doing one every year or so, it's been more than 10 years, which I think it plenty of time for a good number of members to have changed and for those who voted before to have seen other films from the decade they might like to add?

Likewise, while there isn't a rule or custom which says everyone should have a go, I have sympathy for the musical fans who've been asking for a long time and I'm happy to lend them my vote, as I did Noir fans for a countdown I wasn't interested in beyond a few films and 'everyone' said would be crap and have a low turnout.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

I did my part!

I won't reveal what I voted for, but I found one category like pulling teeth and didn't vote for it.

Probably a trap, but it’s also a shallow take.

Some actors who appear in musicals- Girard Butler, Fred Astaire, Russell Crowe, Christopher Plummer, Gene Kelly, Hugh Jackman, Rex Harrison, Ryan Gosling, many more.

Plenty of talented women appear in musicals also.