Movie HALL of FAME Archives & Info

Tools    





The trick is not minding
People have all kinds of reasons for picking the films they pick. It may be that you really, really love Panda Death Blast: Part VI and want to share that love. Maybe you know everyone will hate it but you get a kick out of making them watch it anyway (especially that controversial scene about that controversial topic because you just know it will get people fired up and then you get to have a whole debate about it in the thread). Maybe you know most people will hate it but if there is a chance that at least one person who wouldn't otherwise have given it a chance loves it too, it will have been a worthwhile nom. Maybe you're pretty sure everyone will hate it but that just confirms your own sense of superiority because you get it, you're cool. Maybe you haven't a clue what people will make of it and are just curious because you know, only 16 people have even rated it on imdb and you've never met another person who has even heard of it. Maybe you're sure everyone will love it just like you do.


I think the fundamental difference is that in a general HoF you are nominating just one film whereas in the personal rec HoF, the nomination is more focused on the recipient, so the reasons for nominating are different. You're picking more films, too, so people are less likely to get so invested in their only nom or upset if it's not well received. And since not everyone is watching all the same films, not everyone is in the thread with an opinion about each mentioned film. There's more control for the recipient too, as they can specify preferences or types of movies they wouldn't like. And Panda Death Blast: Part VI isn't on the mofo lists anyway. (Which is not to say that there aren't films that could be controversial.)

(Personally I prefer Panda Death Blast: Part III. It's been diminishing returns since then in the Panda Death Blast franchise.)
Please tell me this is an actual franchise and where can I stream this?!



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Sadly not a real franchise, but maybe it should be!

I forgot to add the possibility of not caring if people like it and just wanting to broaden the field of nominations and debate, but that's the kind of thinking that leads to certain people becoming leaders of political parties* so while it's a valid reason for halls of fame, I can't condone it in all areas.


*no names mentioned to keep the thread politics free as there's enough controversy already, feel free to insert your own names, there's probably plenty.



Not to take the focus away from the definitely real and critically-acclaimed Panda Death Blast series (part II is over-rated ), but I thought of another potential rule that might keep some drama out of the HoF threads:
  • If you suspect another member of being disingenuous with their nomination or criticisms of other films, do not post about it in the thread. You should instead PM your evidence to the host so they can investigate whether or not the accusation is justified.
This way people aren't airing grievances in the thread, and if someone does seem to be trolling, the host can privately speak to the accused about their motives and behaviour to determine the best course of action (a chance to change their behaviour, nomination disqualification, etc).



The trick is not minding
Not to take the focus away from the definitely real and critically-acclaimed Panda Death Blast series (part II is over-rated ), but I thought of another potential rule that might keep some drama out of the HoF threads:
  • If you suspect another member of being disingenuous with their nomination or criticisms of other films, do not post about it in the thread. You should instead PM your evidence to the host so they can investigate whether or not the accusation is justified.
This way people aren't airing grievances in the thread, and if someone does seem to be trolling, the host can privately speak to the accused about their motives and behaviour to determine the best course of action (a chance to change their behaviour, nomination disqualification, etc).
This! Essentially, donít air your grievances publicly, and reach out to the host. Yes. This should definitely be a rule going forward.



Not to take the focus away from the definitely real and critically-acclaimed Panda Death Blast series (part II is over-rated ), but I thought of another potential rule that might keep some drama out of the HoF threads:
  • If you suspect another member of being disingenuous with their nomination or criticisms of other films, do not post about it in the thread. You should instead PM your evidence to the host so they can investigate whether or not the accusation is justified.
This way people aren't airing grievances in the thread, and if someone does seem to be trolling, the host can privately speak to the accused about their motives and behaviour to determine the best course of action (a chance to change their behaviour, nomination disqualification, etc).
I agree with this. That would save so much headache.
__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd



It's time to have some fun
...I thought of another potential rule that might keep some drama out of the HoF threads:
  • If you suspect another member of being disingenuous with their nomination or criticisms of other films, do not post about it in the thread. You should instead PM your evidence to the host so they can investigate whether or not the accusation is justified.
This way people aren't airing grievances in the thread, and if someone does seem to be trolling, the host can privately speak to the accused about their motives and behaviour to determine the best course of action (a chance to change their behaviour, nomination disqualification, etc).
I like that, good idea. I talked to some of the members of the 29th and they had similar suggestions though worded differently. Something along these lines:

  • The host is in charge and settles disputes. If you have a personal dispute with another member message the host and the host will decide how to resolve it.
  • No personal disputes or harassing, no labeling a member or their nom as trolling, no accusing members of not watching the movies. If you have a difference of opinion regarding a film be respectful to other's viewpoints and debate the topic with an open mind and respect.
  • Negative movie reviews are of course allowed and are part of the HoF, but using a review to pay someone back isn't allowed. If such reviews are posted the member will be messaged and asked to take out the snarky comments before linking them and flagging them as official.



The trick is not minding
Does Yoda need to be involved in this conversation, or is it not necessary? I wasnít sure how much he wanted to be involved in it.
I figure he may just let us figure it our ourselves and resolve it among us, but I want to be sure



It's time to have some fun
Yoda once said this:
Huh? He's talking about the HoF voters. He's saying it's there to complete a task.

Anyway, I agree that a) whoever runs a HoF gets to decide the rules, b) anyone who ends up having to watch films they could not have reasonably guessed they might watch should get to drop out without any resulting drama, and c) the committee is an area of last resort when there are intractable differences. You guys can and should work things out on your own whenever possible.
Elaborating on b): whether or not a comedy HoF should include horror, it's clearly understandable why someone might sign up for comedy and then not want to watch gory movies.
Just my two cents.
As long as we follow MoFo rules and keep things cool we shouldn't need supervision and we are working hard at making better rules/guidelines. Would you want Yoda to oversee the 2022 Film Challenge?



The trick is not minding
Yoda once said this:As long as we follow MoFo rules and keep things cool we shouldn't need supervision. Do you want Yoda to oversee the 2022 Film Challenge?
Well, we donít argue and resort to ad hominem remarks in the 2022 challenge, so Iím not sure why it would even need to be brought up. Itís a completely different format as well, and not so much a ďcontestĒ along the same lines.

I was asking if he *needed* to be involved, not suggesting he *should* be involved, as there is a distinct difference. If heís ok with the hosts setting the rules, that answers my question, regardless.



It's time to have some fun
Well, we donít argue and resort to ad hominem remarks in the 2022 challenge, so Iím not sure why it would even need to be brought up. Itís a completely different format as well, and not so much a ďcontestĒ along the same lines.

I was asking if he *needed* to be involved, not suggesting he *should* be involved, as there is a distinct difference. If heís ok with the hosts setting the rules, that answers my question, regardless.
I'm positive Yoda has seen this thread and read it and will be involved as much or as little as he deems necessary. Hopefully he sees that we are all very serious about making new rules/guidelines and that will help make things much better. Of course nothing is ever perfect...I've seen an ad hominem remark just today in the Comedy Countdown.



It's time to have some fun
@Wyldesyde

What rules or guidelines can you think of for HoFs that would make things better? Please post them, that would be a help. I'll check back tomorrow, dinner time right now.



The trick is not minding
I'm positive Yoda has seen this thread and read it and will be involved as much or as little as he deems necessary. Hopefully he sees that we are all very serious about making new rules/guidelines and that will help make things much better. Of course nothing is ever perfect...I've seen an ad hominem remark just today in the Comedy Countdown.
Donít be so defensive! Haha.
This isnít about either of those, but rather the HOF which we all have to admit has gotten too out of control on occasion for the past year or so. Heck, probably even further since I first joined.


As for your second post, I think we kicked around the ideas, and they were no brainers really, on pm, and Iíve commented on others that I whole heartedly agree with, such as Thursday suggestion.

If I think of anything myself, Iíll be sure to bring it up.



Again, I'm just waiting for these 2 dogs to go home in a couple of days. Hoping to have the thread up by Tuesday night. With the comedy countdown ending tomorrow, that should be another list we get to choose from.



Again, I'm just waiting for these 2 dogs to go home in a couple of days. Hoping to have the thread up by Tuesday night. With the comedy countdown ending tomorrow, that should be another list we get to choose from.
Tuesday sounds good. I can knock out Invasion Monday then and be close to done with 29th.



It's time to have some fun
Again, I'm just waiting for these 2 dogs to go home in a couple of days. Hoping to have the thread up by Tuesday night. With the comedy countdown ending tomorrow, that should be another list we get to choose from.
Sounds good to me, I hope the comedy list is up by then...I only have 1/2 of Robot to go and then I'll be finished in the 29th.



29th is over. Is someone going to run a 2010's HoF for the upcoming countdown?

Would anyone be interested in having it a 2 noms per person HoF?
A 2 noms 2010s hall of fame could be good. I would join if you or whoever starts it.