It's hard to get excited about a lot of the movies in the run in for honourable mentions if I'm honest. As long as the really awful movies don't make the cut I'll be satisfied.

I have to agree!

All added.

3 films from the SIX drop down to contenders, while 2 other films with latest backings join them up in the ranks - Tremors and Arachnophobia.

http://www.horror.com/forum/showthre...943#post954943

Honorable Mentions isn't that huge as the top 22. Films will be mentioned, not highlighted. And it's usually the ones left with majority of the backings which didn't make the cut. If we debate long and hard over them, that will take a lot longer to complete as well.

The project's been long-delayed (we started in November last year!), and we are in the 90s from the 14th of this month (that's 4 days to select 2 films + 6 Hon Mens). If I wait for every/all member to log in and voice, then the delay could continue much longer.

That's why I mention "majority" at each juncture.

Suppose I am waiting for someone, who for some reason stops logging in for a couple days/ a week or more, should I be delaying the project as well? How am I to know how long they are planning to stay offline?


Anyway, we are back to debating, folks. Sorry about the see-saws. Keep the thoughts coming.

I'm just saying from the date/time you post, "OK, on to the Honorable Mentions", we should give it at least 24 hours. That's because people come on at different times in the day. We'd still be going pretty swift if Honorable Mentions was completed between 24-48 hours. And if there's some good discussion, I'd assume that's part of the purpose. And there's only one decade left.

edit, no post

I'll go with Event Horizon as well.

Not for nothing but if we waited that long, things would constantly keep getting shifted around and a choice would never be made like the ridiculously long time the 70's took. Like V said, the honorable mentions aren't as important

Say, you're not just wanting to be argumentative, are ya.:) V didn't say the Honorable Mentions (HM) are less important, he said the 6 aren't as huge as the 22, and most of the work is done already. It should go without saying the HM are "less important" than the 22 by the simple logic of the semantic "honorable mention" distinction.

If they weren't important, we wouldn't be doing them. As one member once aptly posted, For HM, if the process was to simply take the films left over with the most backings, that would be the rule instead of it merely being an option (which the vast majority usually choose not to do).

I also take the 100 Years of Horror list seriously, including the HM. I simply recommended we give at least 24 hours because participants get to the forum at different times of the day. Is that really a contentious request? If there happens to be a top 6 in 6 hours, yet were missing 3-4 folks who have been fairly consistently involved within every 24 hrs, is that really what were aiming for?

You should realize, if everyone was here at the same time, we could add up the backings in 30 mins. That doesn't mean we would have only 6 films with a majority (there could be 4 w/ 5 votes, and 4 w/ 4 votes). Less than 24 hrs is not what produces 6 films with a majority. It happens by chance, and discussion/debate gets us to 6. Is that really debatable?

Besides, we're here on this forum (& this thread) because we enjoy discussing horror film with other aficionados. That's a big part of why were doing this. I tell you the truth, I don't want to make things take longer, as there's always other threads to talk film. Rather 24 hrs assists more regular participants, like yourself, to create a great list.

I wasn't trying to be argumentative. V never moves on to the next round until he gets enough say so from everyone involved, so you really don't need to worry about time restraints. All i was trying to say was basically what V already said, that it would take a long time to wait for every member to cast a vote so as soon as he gets a majority vote, he moves on so there's not constant arguing. I don't think there's anything wrong with how he's been doing it so far, but you do and you were trying to take it up with him so i'll stay out of it from now on.

It's okay, Villain. We are already into overtime.

Event Horizon moves into the Honorable Mentions as well. 2 more spots left to fill.

http://www.horror.com/forum/showthre...943#post954943

Well, fair enough, that's how YOU feel... however, that's exactly how I feel about Ringu, yet I would never claim it wasn't a horror movie. And again, The Raven, a wonderful comedy that a few of us backed... that's not even trying to be scary.

I very much doubt that you will be able to find just ONE movie that scares everybody who sees it, so if what scares someone as an individual dictates if something is a horror movie or not, horror movies don't exist.

I have chosen not to back anything for the 80s list, as I don't want to back something just for the sake of backing something.

I'm fine with whatever we'll end up with.

All I ever did was state my opinion. I never said yours was wrong.

Were on the 90's now. Not the 80's

Same here :) Just "defending" my reasons for why I think Ghostbusters is a horror movie... nothing personal.

Yep, we are... but I can't type :D

OK cool. I don't want to piss anybody off

Still in search for 2 more films to finalise for the Honorable Mentions of the 90s.

http://www.horror.com/forum/showthre...943#post954943

I'll back Cemetary Man and Natural Born Killers. This 90's list is never gonna look perfect anyway. The 90's were not a good year for horror.

And so we arrive again at the 6 Honorable Mentions for the 90s.

http://www.horror.com/forum/showthre...943#post954943

If the majority are in agreement, we can pack up the 90s and start working on the 00s.

Oh you didn't! :) You're obviously as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. It's easy to be misunderstood in writing, and unfortunately I sometimes come across as pissed off, offended or angry. The truth is I very rarely am. I'm sorry if I worded my posts in such a way that it made you feel like I was biting your head off, that wasn't my intention.

I usually come off the same way too so I understand.

I'm fine with those choices.

Fine with me. :cool:

I suppose....

lol

Cool crickets on the list.

I agree...

(And I have to say as a side note that it's pretty interesting to see the lack of interest in the 90s list, compared to how passionate most of us have been when debating the other decades).

I am one of the few people that thinks that the 90s was a great decade for horror.

I've found it one of the worst. That's not to say there weren't some good movies to come out of it but overall I think it was lacking.

Ya, just compared to other decades, I think the 90s were a weaker decade for horror. IMO the 80s dwarf the 90s. Could be partly a generational thing. Might I ask how old you are, Mett?

I certainly agree the 80s is a superior decade (and there are certainly other decades that I would say are superior), but I believe that there are many good horror movies (therefore, it is not nearly as bad as many have said). I am 19 (I was born June 16, 1994).

I hope you interpret this as the compliment it's meant to be, but I would honestly have thought you were around my age... and I'm 36 :D

I don't really like Natural Born Killers on the list. I'm all for keeping genre boundaries wide, but even that seems like a stretch. I think Tremors belongs on the list before NBK. It's not perfect, but it was a fun and important film for future horror-lovers like me to watch as a kid. And it's still a bit of confectionery pleasure. It certainly belongs on a horror list before NBK, I think.

While I agree that Tremors is a worthy inclusion on the honorable mention list, I believe that Natural Born Killers is a much better film and definitely worthy of inclusion.

I actually agree with you. I don't even consider Natural Born Killers a horror movie. I really like the film but as you said, its a stretch to say it's horror. I only backed it because we seemed stalled here and i wanted to get things going. I'd prefer Tremors on the list but then again it's only the Honorable Mentions.

I'm not saying that Tremors is a better or worse film than NBK; that's immaterial. My argument is that NBK doesn't belong on a horror list.

Ya, I said it earlier in the honorable mentions debate (not thinking of NBK as horror, but more so thinking it's not necessarily significant to horror). It's too bad you weren't available to stop in earlier, missed your solid input, you could have supported Tremors and a few others.

Is that a negative vote for NBK, fort? If yes, then NBK will drop down and we will have to choose between 3 films for that final HM spot.

http://www.horror.com/forum/showthre...943#post954943

I get what you're saying now. I do not necessarily agree, but I cast a pretty wide net of what is a horror movie.

I wouldn't cry if Natural Born Killers got dropped, unless it was for a weak film. I actually think it has a place on the Honorable Mentions, which IMO don't need to be straight horror. Here are my comments on the film the first time we discussed the 90s.

If it did get dropped, I'd much rather see it get replaced by something unique, like Ravenous or Pin, but those films haven't been discussed. Of the ones that have, I think Funny Games is the most memorable. I don't dislike Tremors. I'd vote for that over a couple others that have been mentioned.

To be honest... me neither.