Voting Philosophies

[Willowfang]

There sure are a lot of strange voting decisions going on this year's horror draft (2012)

People having different tastes is to be expected.

But some factors are obviously uncool

Grizzing: so named after Joe Grizz gave Rusted a huge negative score after they became enemies. Anyone giving a member a lower than real score due to how they feel about the member is just wrong. A movie's quality doesn't change just because it was picked by someone you hate instead of someone you like.

In-versing: The quality of a film doesn't change no matter how well known or obscure it is. While we all like to discover new films, a film isn't better because it's relatively unknown. Nor is a film worse because most every horror fan on the planet has seen it and most love it.


The Thing by John Carpenter. Might just be the mot vanilla horror film on the planet, most everyone has heard of it, seen it, and loves it. Is it a lazy pick? Maybe, but it gets picked early on because many regard it as one of the greatest horror films of all time. Not the only all time great of course, that's dozens, if not 100s of all time great horror films.

Note that it was "obscure" until it came out of VHS and had done "poorly" in theaters.

Every year movies that not so many have heard of get picked. If they're any good, they'll become vanilla.

The Cremator (1969) - Juraj Herz is a good example, made in 1969, first picked 3 years ago and will prolly get picked every year from now on.

It's great to get "Recs" or Recommendations, but do we want to recommend bad movies? It can be good to give everything a chance, but bad movies won't get picked or score well year after year while good movies will become regulars and get picked most every time and score well.

Judging a movie based on how vanilla or mainstream it manages to become is just stupid. Are we really going to hate on movies because they're "too good" or all the "cool kids" like it?

Or give extra points to the ones that didn't get the love they deserved on release? If it's good, it'll get a good score and become vanilla over time. Which mean what's good and obscure this year is shitty and over-rated next year....

Let's try to make sense here.

[Outpost #31]

A good movie is a good movie no matter how "vanilla" it is. I love when people cry and whine over vanilla picks and think they should somehow be punished for taking a kick ass quality flick. Not everybody plays to win although some do and you can't really blame them. It is a game after all. People just want to whine and create problems it seems for whatever reason (they know who they are). Funny thing is that I feel badly for the HS's that pop up but in the drafts many people ignore my non-vanilla picks (and I don't complain.....it's how the game goes). People need to relax and remember that it's just a game. It's not life or death we are talking about

[Daenerys]

We have to remember it is only a game. With that said some will always be dicks, play dirty, take it too seriously, or not take seriously enough no matter what. Why I dont know and that will never change.

But what we can change the rules a bit.

The people that play dirty shouldnt be allowed to play simple as that.

[CountOrlok]

Originally Posted by The Dark Enchantress

We have to remember it is only a game. With that said some will always be dicks, play dirty, take it too seriously, or not take seriously enough no matter what. Why I dont know and that will never change.

But what we can change the rules a bit.

The people that play dirty shouldnt be allowed to play simple as that.

I know it's just a game. That's why I don't understand why people act all butthurt about it. I'm just trying to spice things up a bit, that's all, make it more interesting. I don't know why there has to be so many crybabies.

[Willowfang]

Originally Posted by CountOrlok

I know it's just a game. That's why I don't understand why people act all butthurt about it. I'm just trying to spice things up a bit, that's all, make it more interesting. I don't know why there has to be so many crybabies.

I can see that you're trying to interject a certain integrity into your scoring, giving more merit or less merit to a brain wracked pick vs a pick that can be made looking at any top 250 list let's say.

But you're also over and under valuing a movie by doing that. It's great that lesser known movies are getting to see the light of day, but that doesn't make them better than some movie that's made it into the mainstream and thereby labeled vanilla.

For some movies, they pay very little in the way of dues, some fancy pants director with 5 big stars gets love from day one while others only find their cult status and nitch years after it's release.

Many think it's wrong to under score a movie by pissing on it's true value. Should the movie you give a top score to this year get the lowest score possible ten years later cause it's now vanilla and loved by everyone and played every halloween?

[CountOrlok]

Originally Posted by Willowfang

I can see that you're trying to interject a certain integrity into your scoring, giving more merit or less merit to a brain wracked pick vs a pick that can be made looking at any top 250 list let's say.

But you're also over and under valuing a movie by doing that. It's great that lesser known movies are getting to see the light of day, but that doesn't make them better than some movie that's made it into the mainstream and thereby labeled vanilla.

For some movies, they pay very little in the way of dues, some fancy pants director with 5 big stars gets love from day one while others only find their cult status and nitch years after it's release.

Many think it's wrong to under score a movie by pissing on it's true value. Should the movie you give a top score to this year get the lowest score possible ten years later cause it's now vanilla and loved by everyone and played every halloween?

I can only speak for myself, but I'd rather be introduced to a movie I've never heard of and not like it, than hear about Psycho or Halloween for the millionth time. At least it's something new.

Maybe in time, that movie will become just as vanilla as Psycho or Halloween. But I don't have a time machine, so I don't see how that counts.

[oxley]

Originally Posted by Willowfang

Grizzing: so named after Joe Grizz gave Rusted a huge negative score after they became enemies. Anyone giving a member a lower than real score due to how they feel about the member is just wrong. A movie's quality doesn't change just because it was picked by someone you hate instead of someone you like.
.

That was a good year.

Great term too

But do we really need all these side threads for the draft? People are taking things way too serious/far.

[Willowfang]

Originally Posted by CountOrlok

I can only speak for myself, but I'd rather be introduced to a movie I've never heard of and not like it, than hear about Psycho or Halloween for the millionth time. At least it's something new.

Maybe in time, that movie will become just as vanilla as Psycho or Halloween. But I don't have a time machine, so I don't see how that counts.

But your love of a movie shouldn't depend on what others think of it, that's the point, you're giving a movie extra points for an obscure movie because only "5%" of the horror community knows much of anything about it, and then less points once "70%"+ knows about it.

Do you really hate a good movie 5 years later now that "everyone knows about it and likes it? Or do you want to give high scores to something that has gotten little to no press or advertising, but by picking it you are giving it press and advertising, and there by pushing it into your hated vanilla zone?

[CountOrlok]

Originally Posted by Willowfang

But your love of a movie shouldn't depend on what others think of it, that's the point, you're giving a movie extra points for an obscure movie because only "5%" of the horror community knows much of anything about it, and then less points once "70%"+ knows about it.

No, I already said, I'm giving points on recs, not how well known a movie is. The Burning is well known, and I gave that a +3.

Do you really hate a good movie 5 years later now that "everyone knows about it and likes it? Or do you want to give high scores to something that has gotten little to no press or advertising, but by picking it you are giving it press and advertising, and there by pushing it into your hated vanilla zone?

I highly doubt that.

[nancylives!]

i vote on a movie based on how good or bad i think it is, and i vote based on the movie, not on the genre. unfortunately any movie, obscure or otherwise, is harder to vote for if i haven't seen it a buncha times (or at all), thus reducing my familiarity with it. did i love a nightmare on elm street when i first saw it at age fourteen? yes, but not nearly as much as i love it now, having seen it a trillion times. but it's subjective, as are all things that come down to opinions. if you score a movie based on its' popularity or lack thereof, or on what genre you think it is, that's all well and good, and yes it makes for fun debate. and orlock, i don't think anyone's being a crybaby; but rather than say your piece and vote the way you want, you keep coming back to it and it makes you seem like a joyless dick. not saying that you are; you just seem that way. not to mention it just seems...miserly. this is all fun and games, right?

but it's like the cramps say:

And now they say that virtue is it's own reward
But when that surf comes in I'm gonna get my board
I got my own ideas about the righteous kick
And you can keep the rewards, I'd just as soon stay sick

stay sick, y'all.