50's HoF

I'm in. I see a fairly glaring omission that I intend to remedy.

__________________
Letterboxd | ReverseShot | SlantMagazine

How can you see an omission if no nominations have been revealed yet?

Redwall wanted to nominate a film that won a previous HoF.

If it is not english even mark f probably hasn't seen it.

Edit: Sent in my nomination.

Don't count me in just yet. I don't know if I will do this one. Mainly because I already know what my 1950's list will be for the countdown. Meaning, that list won't be changing. But that also means that I have seen a great deal of films from this decade. I don't know if I am in the mood to do a bunch of re-watches.

Having said that, I thought of one that I could nominate, but I don't know if I am in the mood to hear comparisons to another film. I then thought of another one, but I am not too sure if it is one that I want to consider. Then there was a third one that I thought of, but I don't know.

We have until the 25th to decide? In my case that would be until the 23rd. I know I won't be around here on the 24th or 25th.

So, like I said, don't count me in just yet. But I may decide to participate.

__________________
I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity - Edgar Allan Poe

I hope you do join Vamp You've proven yourself to be a good Hof member, who adds to the conversation and finishes the Hofs.

The deadline is of course up to Friendly Mushroom but I wish it wasn't on Dec 24th which is Christmas eve, as a lot of people will not be around at that time. Maybe we could extend the deadline at least a few days? Please

K December 28th

Thanks FM, you're a good host

That's good. Thanks. It will make my final decision about this easier because I will have a few more days to consider it.

Sent mine, and I feel good about it.

Thanks Cricket.

OP is updated once again.

I'm in. Love stuff like this.

As some of you already know, I stopped joining the HoFs due to some issues with previous HoFs, but I was considering joining this HoF because I love the movies of the 1950s, and I thought this would be a good way to get back into the HoFs.

However I have a slight issue with this HoF due to a "rule", which is actually "not a rule". ("Issue" is probably not the right word, but I'm using it here for lack of a better word.) The "rule" that I'm referring to is #3:


I don't actually have a problem with the rule, and to be honest, I think it's a good idea, however it bothers me a bit because some people may not abide by it, and they might nominate a well-known film, giving them a major edge in the rankings at the end of the HoF.

So when ranking the movies, should those movies get placed lower on the list, simply because the person who nominated them went against this "rule", or should those movies be placed where they belong in the list, pretty much guaranteeing them a top spot in the rankings?

I'll be honest. The reason that this is bothering me is because when I first heard about this HoF, I immediately knew what movie I wanted to nominate, but it became "ineligible" with this rule. I'm okay with that, but I don't think it's fair that other people might nominate that movie, or another "essential" movie, even though it was discouraged.

Does this make sense, or do most of you just think that I'm completely off-base here?

That's a good question, GB, but I think it's a tricky one to answer because not everyone will consider the same movies essential. The movie I nominated is one that I'll guess nobody in this HoF has seen, but then I'm not participating to win, so I'm not worried about this.

It is a good question GB. I would PM Mushroom what your thinking about and maybe he can give you an answer based on the noms. Mine is certainly not a well known "essential" film but it is from a big time director, so I see your point.

__________________
Letterboxd

I'm not "playing to win" either, but some people do, and this just rewards them for not playing by the rules like everyone else. The only reason that I had this specific movie in mind was because it's one of my all-time favorite movies, and a very highly regarded movie, so I wanted it to have a better chance to be the #1 movie when we do the Top 1950s Movies Countdown next year.

I don't mind not nominating it because most people have probably already seen it anyway, and there are other ways of getting the word out about this movie once someone starts the thread for the countdown.


I'll post here what my nomination would have been because it's one of the movies that FM specifically listed to not nominate, and I wouldn't nominate it simply because he asked us not to nominate a well-known "essential" film, and I wouldn't go against this "rule". (I also think it's a good idea because most people like seeing movies that they haven't seen before, rather than a bunch of rewatches, in these HoFs.)

The movie that I wanted to nominate was 12 Angry Men, and even my backup movies if someone else beat me to it were "essential" movies like North by Northwest, Rear Window, Vertigo, etc. (I was avoiding my favorite musicals because I know that there are a lot of people who don't like musicals, and I didn't want to force anyone to watch a musical if they don't like them.)


So what would you do about rankings these movies if someone else nominates them?

I am not trying to step on Mushrooms toes but I personally think everything should be fair game except winners. The HOF was always meant to be HOF like and not a place to discover hidden gems. If you look at the first two or three you can see that is how they were treated. I personally always nominate favorites that I would like to see get in. So I don't play to win but I am not going for deep cuts either. This is probably the most obscure I have ever hone, and around here it won't be considered obscure at all. There are almost always going to be things you haven't seen. Or at the very least things you haven't thought about watching in a long time.

I understand the idea of the HoFs is for the best movies to get in, but I also understand why FM made that "rule". Nobody wants to join a HoF just to watch a bunch of movies that they've already seen.

I actually think it's a good rule in this case, but if it's not an actual "rule", then it gives people an unfair advantage if they just ignore it and nominate an "essential" movie.

I think it should either be an actual rule and the nominations shouldn't be essential movies, or it shouldn't be a rule at all. The way it is now, it's not an even playing field, and it gives an unfair advantage to the people who don't respect this "guideline".

The thing is, some people have seen more movies than others. Whatever gets nominated, some people might have seen all of them, some people won't have seen anything besides their own nomination, so it's impossible to make a hard and fast rule for how obscure the movies are that works for everyone. You can't assume that everyone will have seen even the 'essential' movies.

Even if people have seen the movies, you can still rewatch them and discuss them in more depth.

I always thought the halls of fame were about exploring the different movies not about 'winning'.

Yes, but there are certain movies that are obvious "essentials", and the majority of the people here have probably seen them.


I agree that the HoF isn't about "winning" which is why I don't mind not being allowed to nominate an "essential" movie. I just think this should be an even playing field.

How would you feel if you would have nominated your favorite movie, but you didn't because of this "rule", but then someone else ignored the "rule" and nominated it? Would you still want to rank it at #1 and watch someone else win with your nomination?

It's one thing if they just beat you to it, but it's different if you respected the rules and someone else didn't.