Foreign countdown's done: what's next?

Musicals would be a weak countdown both in participation and trying to fill up a full 100.

I would think for other genres we would just use imdb's genre classification? Keep it simple. No exceptions.

Sure there may be contested definitions in every genre. Like for example some people such as myself might watch The Matrix Resurrections and laugh their a$$e$ off the whole time but I know it's not a comedy and don't need to get all picky on that point.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Holden Pike did an excellent job in the Western HoF as host and he himself decided what criteria to use for a western.

The only countdown fight was YOU fighting with Nostro who was the host of the Horror countdown and you demanded he changed his methodology just to suit you, so your choice Gremlins could be allowed. AND Nosro was originally using the same methodology that you yourself had used as host of the Animated HoF...and later Holden used.

You're being hypocritical.

i think classifying what is and isn't a musical would be tougher than most genres. good luck to whoever gets saddled with that.

Yeah, let's just pick a country and start doing countries... *argument starts over co-productions*

Okay, whatever. I'll take your word for it. I wasn't really part of that argument because I had no interest in participating in a musical HOF. I was trying to find it from vague memory and couldn't using several different search parameters so I assumed it got deleted.

Oh geez here we go again. Yes, I restricted hybrid movies, but that was based on the results of a poll that had been running at the time (started by another MoFo) and a decision had to be made in order to put a stop to arguing that was already taking place. It should also be noted that I was asked by Yoda to host the animation countdown after weeman volunteered and then backed out and I came into a mess of a situation and had to get things sorted and moving quickly. As I've already stated, if I had to do it over again I would allow voters to populate their ballots based on their own definitions, with the resulting points values determining whether the collective community considered hybrid films as animated or not.

I was not involved in the horror HOF. At all. You're thinking of the horror countdown and that argument was never about Gremlins. It was about allowing people to vote how they felt was right and keeping the voting process in line with how previous countdowns had been run. Countdowns are a forum wide collaborative process and the determination of a countdown's parameters should also be collaborative and determined by the community as a whole rather than by a single member.

__________________

The fact remains that Vicky as host of the Animated Countdown told everyone in bold print I'm going to do it my way." And then proceeded to ban any animated film that had any live action elements.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit was banned by Vicky as host.

That's a prime example of her dictating what could and couldn't be included in "her" countdown.

Wrong. Wall E has live action elements. The Lego Movie has live action elements. Fantasia has live action elements. Yet somehow they ended up on the countdown anyway...

The ruling was that it needed to be more than 50% animated and whenever someone brought up a borderline movie, I found and watched the movie before making any ruling on the individual movie.

Also I hosted that countdown back in 2014, but apparently I'm not allowed to change my mind after 8 years.

As I recall, the Academy's ruling is that a film must be at least 75% animated in order to eligible for an Oscar so 50% is being quite generous. I would agree that Who Framed Roger Rabbit is more of a live-action film with animated elements than vice versa.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

You're allowed to change your mind just don't be a hypocrite about it.

When you hosted a Countdown you told everyone in bold print this and I linked it it seems that I have been put in charge of running this monster and I'm going to do it my way.


LMAO, you once told everyone you're doing the Animated Countdown your way. Then today you make a big stink about an idea I once had for an HoF and claim it was deleted for arguing, when in fact it was never even made, it was just a discussion and get ready for this it was 7 years ago.

You yourself did a countdown your way...And so did Holden Pike with the Western countdown, I didn't see you complain about him. Pike did a great job btw.

I'm off to work...

And we should do a Comedy Countdown IMO.

And Allaby should host it

Really going off to work in a few minutes

My requirements would be simple and fair. To classify as a comedy, it has to:

-make me laugh at least 7 times
-star several beautiful women
-feature at least one scene with a dancing baby
-have 1 or more kittens in it
-end with a large musical number

Seems reasonable.

So… I’m allowed to change my mind but I’m not actually allowed to change my mind. Makes sense.

I dunno why I find this so amusing, but I do.

I'm imagining you sitting on six laughs at the end and chuckling a little and going "hmmm, no, barely a chortle, nevermind a full-throated guffaw. INELIGIBLE!"

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought one of the reasons for these countdowns is to broaden our horizons and watch movies that we might not watch on our own. On average, we get three months to watch movies for these countdowns, and we should be using them to watch movies that might make our own top 25 lists.

Maybe we should stop accepting lists the minute the countdown is announced, and encourage people to use the three months we're given to actually watch movies before submitting a list, rather than just rushing to get their list in without watching anything. That way we might actually encourage participation, and be able to reach 100 movies for the countdown.

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.

You're not wrong, GBG, that's definitely at least part of the reason (otherwise why bother setting up a whole sub-section of the site where we can check off which titles we've seen?). I think you're on to something about how the three-month window should be used to try checking out as many potential candidates for a final ballot as possible - the only drawback I can think of is that this might lead to the list being influenced by recency bias when it comes to individual choices (e.g. is the film I just watched for the first time a week before making my list really better than the old favourite I haven't seen in a few years?), but then again you can also use the time to revisit possible contenders and determine if they really belong on your shortlist.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think delaying the start time for voting will help with participation. I set a delay for partial ballots in the animation countdown in order to encourage people to explore and I still think that's a reasonable requirement. However, I think doing that for everyone might actually decrease the number of voters because life gets in the way and people forget. So if someone has a well-established list of 25 favorite musicals (or whatever the subject of the next countdown ends up being) then I don't think there's much point in them exploring more, unless they genuinely want to.

I understand what you're saying about recency bias, but if people watch a combination of new watches and rewatches of old favorites, they should still be able to come up with a well balanced list.

I watched over 150 new watches for the current 2000s countdown, and only about five of these new watches made my list. (But it made it a lot harder to narrow down my list to only 25 movies that I thought really deserved to be on my list, rather than a bunch of movies that I could have included just to fill my list.)

And wouldn't it be better to have the list affected by recency bias, then to have people submitting lists of movies that they like, but don't love, but they're only voting for them because they've already seen them, and then we consistently read comments from people during the reveal of the countdown that they haven't seen these movies?

Why is this a bad thing? Genuine question. I mean, exploration is certainly part of the reason for making these lists, but so is using the final product to find previously unseen films to check out.