General Hall of Fame discussion thread

I mentioned before that I would like to get people together to run some of the HoFs and discuss when and what we should do for special ones. No one responded, but I thought that maybe if I opened a thread for the specific purpose of discussing it there may be some response.

I'd like to be able to just be a particpate sometimes or maybe even skip some of the special ones that I'm not particularly interested in, but I think we should have a schedule of some sorts so there aren't too many HoFs at one time and there is some orgainzation of who is running what. There were three HoFs running concurrently at one time, but for the most part I think one standard and one special at a time is generally in the best interest. Any more and it gets spread too thin and over saturated which causes burn-out.

There was a three way tie when I did the poll, so I'm pretty set on B Movie creature features and science fiction movies to go next, but I'm not set on running it if anyone wants to run that particular one.

I'm also interested in hearing tweaks and such that might make the game more fun and interesting, but nothing that changes the essence of what it is. In that case just create something new.

So thoughts? Opinions?

Sounds great Godoggo.

B Movie Creature Features ehh?

GODZILLA!

I agree with you that two at a time seems like a good amount. I will say I don't think the shorts being run at the same time interfere at all. So maybe one genre specific at a time and one overall round at a time. When one ends starts another. I really liked the noir. I would look forward to a documentary one at some point as well.

__________________
Letterboxd

Everything you said Godoggo makes good sense to me. 1 standard and 1 special Hof at a time. And like Sean said, an additional short Hof could also run consecutively.

All I can add is from my experience running the Noir Hof:

I wish I would have listed the films in chronological or alphabetically order and suggested that people could optionally watch them that way. Why?...

I found that when people posted about a movie they had watched, there would be a brief conversation generated. But when weeks latter, other members posted their thoughts on the same film, almost nobody responded to them. People just don't like to repeat themselves. If more people could be on the same 'page' it would make it more fun. If chronologically or alphabetically watching was optional, it doesn't change the rule but adds more opportunity.

I'll reiterate the fact that I hope people aren't afraid to nominate films that others have likely seen if they believe it is a worthy candidate.

I like the idea, but people move at much different speeds so it would be near impossible to work that way.

Yes I agree Raul. But I don't mean everybody watching the same films at the same time. I mean just a few more than normal synced up, even if they watch the films a week or more apart, it would still help up the conversation level.

I am going to try making a spoiler discussion thread for each film nominated for HOF 6. This will maybe help with the discussion aspect, time will tell. It has been a concern that has come up in the past. We can keep trying different things until we find what works best.

Raul is right. We have a hard enough time getting people to watch them all period. Let alone asking 12 people to watch them what basically amounts to together.

Sean I'm not saying people are requested to watch them in order, only that it's an optional idea. In other words if I could do the Noir Hof over. I would have listed the films chronologically and said something like this.

"I'm planning on watching these in chronological order, if anybody else wants to, that would be great as we can discuss the films while they are fresh in our minds....BUT it's just a suggestion, not a rule"

I hope you don't think we are being confrontational. None of us have said but I think we are all thinking, Godoggo did the exact thing your saying in HOF 2. Its a great idea that most people don't seem to be willing to participate in. It certainly doesn't hurt though.

I generally don't watch someone's film until I get an exact idea on whether they are going to participate or not because there has been dropouts that have become more common too.

I hope you don't think we are being confrontational...No not at all

So that's my 1 idea.

My 2nd idea is that I found that almost everybody had watched the bulk of the 13 noir films in only a month. I don't think a deadline of 3 months was needed. I could have done 2 months. People would have watched the films AND as a bonus the excitement level goes up as comments are posted faster AND another Hof can start sooner.

The noir was an exception to the rule. We still have people that are finishing the 5th Hall of Fame that was started in October .

But if the deadline had been shorter they just might have watched the movies faster. It's just an idea based on my limited experience. Something that might be tried on a special Hof.

I think shorter deadlines will work better with special hofs because if you are participating in it, it's most likely because every film is in a genre that you are interested in. With a regular hall of fame, there could be several movies that you aren't really interested in.

One question that came up several times was:

'Are we suppose to nominate the 'best of the best' films, or our personal favorites, or something that we find interesting?'

People seemed to have different takes on the answer. So that might be worth discussing at the start of a Hof.

The answer should be all of those things.

Yeah, the one week per movie is actually making it a lot shorter than what it was once. Any shorter and I think we would have even more drop outs. I have to extend almost everyone as it is.

Also, I agree with you about the short HoFs, Seanc. I think one of those can run whenever there is eight or more people interested. It's not as if they take up a whole lot of time. I wasn't really thinking about them when I was thinking about the one standard/one special. I think short HoFs should pretty much be free to pop up whenever. If eight people join one that's less than four hours of watch time, generally. People really should be able to do that in a couple of weeks.

I think you're idea about creating a thread for each movie is a good one and the only thing I can see to keep the discussions more organized. My only concern is the amount of threads that is going to create and if Yoda would find that problematic.

I was really hoping documentaries would win the poll. I have so many I want to nominate I could easily nominate all twelve movies myself.

I will PM him before Friday to make sure its cool. If not, maybe he would be willing to eliminate 90% of Sexy's threads as a trade off.

It should be a good movie. That's why I've always wanted people to write a little note about why they nominated it. Not that everyone ever does, but I feel like people should already be thinking about why the movie that they are nominating is so good it should be in a Hall of Fame. Was it an influential movie? Was it groundbreaking in any way? Does it say what it has to say better than any other movie? Does it affect you personally? Was it really thoughtful? Technically well made? Can you produce any argument why it should be inducted?

Everyone I've nominated has been a personal favorite but it's also been a movie that I think is special enough in some way to be inducted. I have several personal favorites that I think have no business being in an HoF. I might like them, but I couldn't really make many good arguments for them being inducted.