Submit Your
Comedy
List
The deadline for the Top Comedies of All Time list is coming up! Submit your ballot now, or read about it here

The 27th General Hall of Fame

Tools    





In a Glass Cage was on my all-time top-100 ballot so what's your issue with it again?
We've already talked about this one before. It's in that thread.



In a Glass Cage was on my all-time top-100 ballot so what's your issue with it again?
While I enjoyed your nomination, I understand why it got some backlash given that it was an extreme film which showed actual scenes of underage boys being disrobed and sexually touched on camera by an older man. It's a bit different than Themroc and Daisies, given that the backlash those films received were mostly due to them being weird more than containing potentially objectionable content.



We've already talked about this one before. It's in that thread.
I didn't ask why you don't like the film, but what's your issue with the nomination? It's certainly fine by the criteria you provided a few posts earlier (...I just legitimately want people to nominate films they like...). Feels awfully like a "temper tantrum" to me
__________________



Anyways, this is a very drama-filled introduction to this Hall, but after all this is finished, let's hope for smooth sailing from here.



I didn't ask why you don't like the film, but what's your issue with the nomination? It's certainly fine by the criteria you provided a few posts earlier (...I just legitimately want people to nominate films they like...). Feels awfully like a "temper tantrum" to me
Did you honestly see that movie getting good feedback? It was an obvious last place the minute the synopsis was read.



While I enjoyed your nomination, I understand why it got some backlash given that it was an extreme film which showed actual scenes of underage boys being disrobed and sexually touched on camera by an older man. It's a bit different than Themroc and Daisies, given that the backlash those films received were mostly due to them being weird more than containing potentially objectionable content.
Yet for some reason Christine F. featuring a 13- or 14-year-old girl giving a hand job to an adult man, having sex with her junkie boyfriend, and doing drugs didn't raise any eyebrows. Also Pixote featuring a rape of a young boy, full-frontal underaged nudity, and said boy kissing an adult woman raised only small concerns from one user (I'd remember).

Sorry about this slightly off-topic rant. This has no effect on me joining or not and fortunately, I don't know any other pedophile nazi murderer films I'd like.



As an aside, I'm sure that crumbsroom would've liked Themroc.

That definitely sounds up my alley. And kudos to having such a thing nominated. Now hopefully it's going to be easy for me to find a link to stream it........



Well what I like about my nom's is I try and move away from genre, age, and prestige and give you guys an experience. You never know what a Siddon nomination is going to be.



Did you honestly see that movie getting good feedback? It was an obvious last place the minute the synopsis was read.
Most of the reviews seemed to be around 3/5 and prior to nominating, I knew that two other participants liked the film (there are older discussions about it on the forums). Besides, that's a completely different "issue" now - apparently, nominator liking the film isn't enough now?



That definitely sounds up my alley. And kudos to having such a thing nominated. Now hopefully it's going to be easy for me to find a link to stream it........
part of the reason i picked it is because it was extremely easy to find a link just by googling it lol.



Well what I like about my nom's is I try and move away from genre, age, and prestige and give you guys an experience. You never know what a Siddon nomination is going to be.
the best and worst things i saw in 2021 were Siddon noms lol.



I'll kill anyone who get's in the way of me killin
::adjusts Host hat::
::clears throat::


All righty, then, allow me to address some truly important issues, if I may.

The first and most important, I feel, that yes, Speling is VERY correct. I AM a [email protected] good host. I rock, I roll, and even shimmy and groove, so there's that.

Secondly, and equally important:
WELCOME BACK MISS VICKY!!!!


Next; We're at a very excellent rate on day one of nominations with eight folks in, two on the sidelines accompanying a new spectator -- WELCOME @Dumbear!! Sit back, enjoy, and I'm very happy to have you here!

Regarding @rauldc14 and his concerns he has the right, as we all do, to voice them, and I have love and respect for the man and I'd rather things were allowed their time to "air out" than to fester.
We love this format and the myriad of opportunities it presents for us movie lovers/watchers so it's best to speak out and to respect one another and our myriad of opinions/views on all sides.

@ueno_station54 is new and like all of us, will adjust while, hopefully, staying true to herself as a fellow movie watcher. Not everyone gels with everyone and for good and for bad, variety is a good thing. We can applaud. We can groan and b#tch. Both of which are ALSO a good thing.
I did reject her initial series suggestion, simply because this is a Movie HoF and I do firmly believe that a Specialty HoF of Mini-Series would be excellent and her "superhero bs lol" would fit beautifully there. When Siddon's mini-series was accepted it was a very singular exception that, for me, paid off. But, again, as Host, I wanted to stay within the set format of Films and would happily participate in a Specialty HoF of mini-series. Speling's Twilight Zone is an excellent example of how well such an HoF would do.


That should do for now, till next we meet. . .
__________________
What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer.



Yet for some reason Christine F. featuring a 13- or 14-year-old girl giving a hand job to an adult man, having sex with her junkie boyfriend, and doing drugs didn't raise any eyebrows. Also Pixote featuring a rape of a young boy, full-frontal underaged nudity, and said boy kissing an adult woman raised only small concerns from one user (I'd remember).

Sorry about this slightly off-topic rant. This has no effect on me joining or not and fortunately, I don't know any other pedophile nazi murderer films I'd like.
Since I haven't seen those films, nor was I a participant in the respective Halls for those films, I'd have to watch them to form an opinion on the content in them. Regardless, my post was more of a general statement that extreme films shouldn't be nominated in main Halls. They'd be more appropriate for an extreme film HoF if anyone were to put one together.



Allaby's Avatar
Guy who likes movies
Since I haven't seen those films, nor was I a participant in the respective Halls for those films, I'd have to watch them to form an opinion on the content in them. Regardless, my post was more of a general statement that extreme films shouldn't be nominated in main Halls. They'd be more appropriate for an extreme film HoF if anyone were to put one together.
I respectfully disagree. I think extreme films should be eligible for general halls, if the person nominating it genuinely believes it is worthy. There are some great films that have content or themes that might be considered extreme or offensive to some people, but are still worthy of being nominated for a general hall, in my opinion.



I've seen a lot of films but I have not seen 2 out of 3 of those (The Deer Hunter and No Country for Old Men).

This time I went with a well known film myself. Sometimes I don't. Just depends on my mood.
It's not so much about it being known or unknown. You haven't seen The Deer Hunter but I bet everyone on this forum knows of it, and that most people who haven't seen it yet vaguely have it on their to-see list.

The value I've gotten out of these HoF experiences is seeing films that weren't on my radar or that I would not have sought out on my own.

Go watch it then. Have fun.
I . . . might have fun with it? Which is the point of this kind of thing?

Did you honestly see that movie getting good feedback? It was an obvious last place the minute the synopsis was read.
I liked it a lot and rated it something like
. It was around the middle of my ballot if I recall correctly, maybe even toward the top?

It comes down to whether you mean what you say about people nominating things they love and think that some others may really like. Like I said in the thread at the time, I was as disturbed by the child abuse in Antwone Fisher as what happened in In a Glass Cage. Moreso, honestly, because it was a thing happening to a real person and not part of a larger allegory.

This is a potluck. Do you want people to bring food they genuinely find delicious, knowing it might make some people gag? Or do you want everyone to bring potato chips?



I respectfully disagree. I think extreme films should be eligible for general halls, if the person nominating it genuinely believes it is worthy. There are some great films that have content or themes that might be considered extreme or offensive to some people, but are still worthy of being nominated for a general hall, in my opinion.
I remember several of us discussing a similar thing in the past. While I agreed with the general consensus we settled on that it's impossible to account for everything which may possibly trigger or offend someone, I do think we should make an effort to avoid nominating some films with obvious or common triggers, like unstimulated violence toward animals or underage nudity.



Allaby's Avatar
Guy who likes movies
I remember several of us discussing a similar thing in the past. While I agreed with the general consensus we settled on that it's impossible to account for everything which may possibly trigger or offend someone, I do think we should make an effort to avoid nominating some films with obvious or common triggers, like unstimulated violence toward animals or underage nudity.
Those two types of content are wildly different though. Unsimulated violence towards animals is genuinely offensive, wrong, and harmful. Underage nudity, in my opinion, is not harmful or immoral and should not be offensive, although some people are, for whatever reason, offended by it. Not trying to offend anyone here, but that is my honest opinion on it.



Those two types of content are wildly different though. Unsimulated violence towards animals is genuinely offensive, wrong, and harmful. Underage nudity, in my opinion, is not harmful or immoral and should not be offensive, although some people are, for whatever reason, offended by it. Not trying to offend anyone here, but that is my honest opinion on it.
I mentioned underage nudity because that caused controversy in some past Halls. I don't want to directly name anyone, but I saw a couple posters state in the past that they might not join anymore Halls due to the underage nudity in some films which were nominated for them. I haven't seen this type of controversy occur for different types of potentially disturbing or offensive content, so that's why I listed unsimulated violence and underage nudity as common triggers up above. They have caused issues in the past.