50's HoF

I don't know what to say here. I'll come to some conclusion within 24 hours.

That's fine. I have to go out for a while anyway, so I'll check back in here when I get home.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with that being an actual rule. There are plenty of non-essential movies that I could nominate, so I can easily pick a different movie to nominate.

I just think it's too confusing (and a little unfair) if it's just a "guideline" or "suggestion".

I just don't know how you would define essential. Maybe say nothing of the two main 100 lists or something like that.

__________________
Letterboxd

I support FM...and I do like his idea of not wanting essential films (dead ringers). Most importantly it's his choice as he's the boss.

On the other hand it's hard to say what is and isn't an essential film? So I understand it can be a question.

But to me this is no big deal There will always be a range of Hof films from essential to obscure. I don't see a need for rules, FM's guidelines were clear enough to me and if someone disregards his guidelines then they have to wrestle with their own consciousness about that.

Yeah, I'm with you. I understood the spirit of what he meant. I may have nominated Rear Window too. I won't be upset if it's nominated either though.

Me neither, I would love to see Rear Window again, it's been over 10 years.

Yeah this is hard. Nope just changed his nom from a well known film to a lesser known film, though the lesser known film has more votes on imdb than his first pick. (Reason his first pick was American, second was foreign,)

Im just going to disregard this rule for now until a better plan of action is set into place.

Someone did wanted to nominate Rear Window but changed his pick.

How about we have two sets of list? One for lesser known films and one for well known films? Probably wont work

Well maybe Nope can change his nom back to his first choice now.

I like it. This is a small Hof so far, so I would be for that idea.

I originally placed the under appreciated part of the roles as a loophole on how you can nominate a famous film. For example, I remember a lot of people here saw Roman Holiday in a short period of time and they all said it was okay, including Cricket. Mark F replied to them saying if it was in Italian, they would have loved it. Roman Holiday has 90000 sum votes on Imdb but since prople here dont think that highly of it, it could have been nominated

FM, it's up to you but if you do the 2 list idea, you could use the IMDB votes as a rough guideline. I know the IMDB votes aren't perfect, but you could pick a cut off point using them.

The two films I'm considering, have 6000+ votes and the other has 2000+ votes. So I would say both are not essential films, though both have high ratings.

You could always nominate the far more obscure 13 Angry Males.

14 Confused MoFos

Oh, before I got to reading this post I knew it was going to be "12 Angry Men". Mainly because I know you said that you thought about it for another HoF. And it happens to be from the 1950's.

Here is my dilemma. Like I said the other day on here, there is a movie that I considered, that I really like, that ranks high in the 1950's category for me. But I decided that it wouldn't be a good choice because I don't know if it would necessarily be enjoyed by enough people (I know for sure gbg wouldn't be too thrilled to see it again - I happened to discover that the other day ). That film is just cut from any consideration.

The second one is another that ranks high for me, but my, oh, my it isn't too high (but not low at all) on IMDB. And I just know I have to listen to what other people on that site say. So I thought "Well, maybe everyone will hate it". I just don't care to nominate something that I think people just didn't like even a tiny bit. Mainly because I know what it feels like to watch something that feels like torture.

The first movie (and one that I am still thinking about) is one that will garner comparisons to another film, which is completely unfair to this one. I thought it fit perfectly in the non-essential category, though. I completely understand what was meant by this "rule". I thought it would be perfect until I realized that people will be doing comparisons. And that just isn't fair to this movie.

And then I re-read the rules. And again, here is number 3:
I took that to mean that we should avoid nominating the ones that, perhaps, most people have seen and try to go for something different. And then I thought about it. There are movies that people have seen (and a lot of people have seen them), but there are also ones that alot of people have not seen based on, basically, genre. Yet, they have heard of these movies. They know of them. So, I immediately had one enter my head that I was considering for a different HoF. I know people know it. But I don't know if enough have seen it. It is one that I would seriously consider.

I was just figuring that the "big" pictures would be saved for another time. But for this one, the films that are not as big (but do not necessarily have to be small ones) were going to be considered.

Correct me if I am wrong, please.

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

I was going to nominate North By Northwest, but then changed twice because of the essentials rule. I still think the rule makes sense though, HoF should be about showing people movies they have never seen and hearing they're opinions on it.

I want to make it clear that I'm not asking that anyone change their nomination. That's not why I posted about this. I knew that this was only a suggestion, not a rule, and that some people would choose to nominate an "essential" movie. Nobody is breaking the rules by nominating one of these movies.

I thought of it more as respecting the request of the person running the HoF. Some people will choose to respect his request, but others may not. That's up to the individual picking their nomination. Some people might even nominate an "essential" movie without even realizing that it's considered an "essential" movie.

I posted about this more about how to rank those movies, rather than about whether or not they should be allowed, but the topic kind of skewed a little bit when I was trying to explain it.


I'm not really sure how we would define an "essential" movie, but I thought of it as a movie that's highly rated and most people have already seen, like the movies that consistently make the top movie lists. Maybe Mark F has a suggestion about how to define these movies?

I like the idea of having two lists, and each person could nominate two movies, one essential movie and one non-essential movie. That allows us to all watch some movies that are pretty much guaranteed to make the 1950s countdown, and some other movies that are lesser known films that we love, but that wouldn't be able to compete against the "giants" in a normal HoF.

We should be able to nominate anything in my opinion.