Film World Cup - Season 3 - Discussion before preparation

[Mario Gaborović]

I think you'll reconsider when you realize one of the matches this time round will be dedicated to the theme of gay S&M + emaciated Goth chicks, right?

Do you speak Spanish? I have a rec for you. Coz there's no English subs.

Does it involve a sex doll? Anyhow, bring it on, please.

No sex dolls, but it's from Panama. It's a very good comedy about two nannies who turn tables to their noveau riche bosses, a politician and his spoilt wife/daughters. Maybe I'll use it in the WC, but I need more good films from this obscure country.
I rarely laugh at comedies lately but this one was a real treat. I enjoyed it even though I had to use Google Translate on the right side of the screen to understand it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1264879/

It's on kg.

[monty]

Don't think I've seen a Panamanian feature before. Thx for the rec, Mario.

[mjf314]

So it looks like we're heading for a faster version of last year's tournament.

How do you come to this conclusion?

Just because so far 12 people say faster, 9 the same and 8 slower pace. Also shorter duration (15-4) with an equal or even higher number of countries (16-12).

If you calculate the mean vote, it's closer to 1.5 per week than 2 per week.

[joachimt]

Did some more calculations on brokenface's proposal.

Round 1, groups of 4, each match 4 weeks, overlap 2 weeks.
Round 2, groups of 3, each match 3 weeks, overlap 1 week.
Rest, groups of 2, each match 2 weeks, overlap 3-4 days.

With this schedule round 1 takes only 1 week longer, because the matches last 4 weeks, but the pace is about the same as my previous proposal. The advantage is that people who are a bit busy have time enough to plan the watches, because they've got 4 weeks to do so.

The whole tournament would be over in 12.5 months.

[joachimt]

I know this schedule wasn't a poll option, but I think it's a good idea. Most people seemed to support the idea of having 2 countries proceed from the groups in round 1. To do so, you'll either need 32 or 64 countries, or you need to solve it with groups of 3 in round 2. I think it's a quite elegant solution.

Without creating a new poll for this...... Is there anyone with strong reasons not to do this?

[tommy_leazaq]

I'm all for the "Groups of 3" in R2.. It's new so excited to try it out.

[Mario Gaborović]

I know this schedule wasn't a poll option, but I think it's a good idea. Most people seemed to support the idea of having 2 countries proceed from the groups in round 1. To do so, you'll either need 32 or 64 countries, or you need to solve it with groups of 3 in round 2. I think it's a quite elegant solution.

Without creating a new poll for this...... Is there anyone with strong reasons not to do this?

Wait a minute... that option is possible with 48 countries as well; 12x4 and then 8x3, haven't we agreed on that? I guess the only thing left to decide is the number of countries. It's tied right now, but there's also four people who voted for 64 or even 80 (which is way too much).

[joachimt]

I know this schedule wasn't a poll option, but I think it's a good idea. Most people seemed to support the idea of having 2 countries proceed from the groups in round 1. To do so, you'll either need 32 or 64 countries, or you need to solve it with groups of 3 in round 2. I think it's a quite elegant solution.

Without creating a new poll for this...... Is there anyone with strong reasons not to do this?

Wait a minute... that option is possible with 48 countries as well; 12x4 and then 8x3, haven't we agreed on that? I guess the only thing left to decide is the number of countries. It's tied right now, but there's also four people who voted for 64 or even 80 (which is way too much).

48 is what I meant. If you do groups of 4 with 2 proceeding and then one-on-one, then you need either 32 or 64 countries. With 48 you need to do it with groups of 3 in round 2 or with only the best 4 numbers 2 proceeding (which makes the tournament a lot shorter).

So yes, 48 countries is the way to go I think.

[jvv]

My personal preference is 32 countries and 1 vs 1 all the way, but I'm OK with any other schedule as long as the pace isn't too fast (not everyone has seen more than half of the movies already).

[Fergenaprido]

I'm also concerned about a faster pace. Even with more time per match, I know I'll burn out quickly, especially with so many iffy films in the first round. My preference is groups of 4 with 32 countries in the first round, then knockout matches from thereon in.

As much as I enjoyed the world cup, I'm really enjoying being able to watch more of what interests me than in what I feel obligated to watch (and yes, I know I don't have to participate, but I do like the cup in general).

[Mario Gaborović]

I'm really enjoying being able to watch more of what interests me than in what I feel obligated to watch

2.5 months is plenty of time to fill in your gaps before we start. Add to it previous 7 you've spent doing godknowswhat.

[Lonewolf2003]

I'm also concerned about a faster pace. Even with more time per match, I know I'll burn out quickly, especially with so many iffy films in the first round. My preference is groups of 4 with 32 countries in the first round, then knockout matches from thereon in.

As much as I enjoyed the world cup, I'm really enjoying being able to watch more of what interests me than in what I feel obligated to watch (and yes, I know I don't have to participate, but I do like the cup in general).

I'm with Ferge and jvv. The number of movies one has to watch is my main concern.
I also dislike group matches, cause head-to-head is easier to decide for me, so doing two group matches does not have my preference.

If we do groups I prefer groups of 4, with possible the best #2s advancing also. Best #2 would be to me those that came closes to being #1 in their group.

I'm not so concerned about an Egypt situation happening again. That is part of the game and also the fun of it.

I do think this option warrants a poll question, the fact a few active users in this thread agreed to it doesn't mean the majority does.

[joachimt]

I'm also concerned about a faster pace. Even with more time per match, I know I'll burn out quickly, especially with so many iffy films in the first round. My preference is groups of 4 with 32 countries in the first round, then knockout matches from thereon in.

With my last proposal, only the pace in round 1 is slightly faster. The rest is the same as the previous editions. Round 1 will have 48 movies from the 1st of January till the 2nd of July, so 8 movies a month averagely (if you haven't seen anything yet).

[joachimt]

I do think this option warrants a poll question, the fact a few active users in this thread agreed to it doesn't mean the majority does.

I'll add a poll with the various options we have so far. Before opening that poll, I'll summarize the different options here.

[Lonewolf2003]

I'm really enjoying being able to watch more of what interests me than in what I feel obligated to watch

2.5 months is plenty of time to fill in your gaps before we start. Add to it previous 7 you've spent doing godknowswhat.

2.5 months? We haven't even set a deadline for managers sign up yet, and for sure it's not known when the first round movies will be revealed.

[Lonewolf2003]

I'm also concerned about a faster pace. Even with more time per match, I know I'll burn out quickly, especially with so many iffy films in the first round. My preference is groups of 4 with 32 countries in the first round, then knockout matches from thereon in.

With my last proposal, only the pace in round 1 is slightly faster. The rest is the same as the previous editions. Round 1 will have 48 movies from the 1st of January till the 2nd of July, so 8 movies a month averagely (if you haven't seen anything yet).

What was/is the previous/after round 1 movies/month rate?

[Mario Gaborović]

I'm really enjoying being able to watch more of what interests me than in what I feel obligated to watch

2.5 months is plenty of time to fill in your gaps before we start. Add to it previous 7 you've spent doing godknowswhat.

2.5 months? We haven't even set a deadline for managers sign up yet, and for sure it's not known when the first round movies will be revealed.

I meant MEANWHILE, joachim said that we're about to start around New Year's Eve, so you have more than 2.5 months from now to watch whatever your priority is.

[joachimt]

I'm also concerned about a faster pace. Even with more time per match, I know I'll burn out quickly, especially with so many iffy films in the first round. My preference is groups of 4 with 32 countries in the first round, then knockout matches from thereon in.

With my last proposal, only the pace in round 1 is slightly faster. The rest is the same as the previous editions. Round 1 will have 48 movies from the 1st of January till the 2nd of July, so 8 movies a month averagely (if you haven't seen anything yet).

What was/is the previous/after round 1 movies/month rate?

Season 2:
Round 1 - 48 movies in 7.5 months (6.4 movies/month)
Round 2 - 16 movies in 2.8 months (5.7 movies/month)
Other round same pace as round 2.

In the above proposal round 1 will be 8 movies/month, round 2 will be 6.4 movies/month, rest will be 5.7 movies/month.

[joachimt]

So which options should I put in the final poll?

1. Exactly the same as last edition: 48 countries, groups of 3 in round 1 with 1 proceeding, rest one-on-one
2. 32 countries, groups of 4 in round 1 with 2 countries proceeding, rest one-on-one
3. 32 countries, one-on-one the whole tournament
4. 48 countries, groups of 4 in round 1 with 2 countries proceeding, groups of 3 in round 2 with 1 proceeding, rest one-on-one
5. 48 countries, groups of 4 in round 1 with the four best #2's proceeding, rest one-on-one

Anything else?

[Mario Gaborović]

I think the first option is needless, 'cause we agreed by vast majority that THERE WILL BE changes in one of the previous polls.

So I guess what collects most votes here, will be the final outcome? YOu just need to set the deadline.

[Lonewolf2003]

Maybe leave out the one-on-one option so people like me who prefer that have to chose one of the group options? Or give people the option to chose 2 options, so they can chose their second best choice too?

[joachimt]

I think the first option is needless, 'cause we agreed by vast majority that THERE WILL BE changes in one of the previous polls.

So I guess what collects most votes here, will be the final outcome? YOu just need to set the deadline.

Which vast majority? 14 people voted for change, 9 for no change and 5 didn't care. That's no vast majority.

I'll set a deadline for this indeed.

[joachimt]

Maybe leave out the one-on-one option so people like me who prefer that have to chose one of the group options? Or give people the option to chose 2 options, so they can chose their second best choice too?

I'll let people pick 2 choices.

[beavis]

I don't think option 3 and 5 are appealing much
But i can't think of other options to add other than just making it bigger or last longer, and i don't think there is a majority in favor of that. So lets just see what these options will do

[joachimt]

I don't think option 3 and 5 are appealing much
But i can't think of other options to add other than just making it bigger or last longer, and i don't think there is a majority in favor of that. So lets just see what these options will do

Hardly anyone voted for more than 48 countries, so no need to include that indeed.

[albajos]

I don't see why they didn't. There are for example 85 countries sending in films to the academy awards, and those are non-english only, so adding english speaking counties we could probably reach 96.

96/4=24. 24/3=8. 8/2=4. 4/2=2. 2/2=1. 39 rounds.
Or if that is to many, 72 should absolutely be in reach. (72/3=24. 24/3=8. 8/2=4. 4/2=2. 2/2=1. 39 rounds.)

[joachimt]

I don't see why they didn't. There are for example 85 countries sending in films to the academy awards, and those are non-english only, so adding english speaking counties we could probably reach 96.

96/4=24. 24/3=8. 8/2=4. 4/2=2. 2/2=1. 39 rounds.
Or if that is to many, 72 should absolutely be in reach. (72/3=24. 24/3=8. 8/2=4. 4/2=2. 2/2=1. 39 rounds.)

It seems most people think a total runtime of about a year is best. With 39 rounds it will take about 1.5 years.

[Mario Gaborović]

I don't see why they didn't. There are for example 85 countries sending in films to the academy awards, and those are non-english only, so adding english speaking counties we could probably reach 96.

96/4=24. 24/3=8. 8/2=4. 4/2=2. 2/2=1. 39 rounds.
Or if that is to many, 72 should absolutely be in reach. (72/3=24. 24/3=8. 8/2=4. 4/2=2. 2/2=1. 39 rounds.)

That's unlikely to be voted for, so that's why you should at least vote for what's more probable: 48 (brokenface's system). Otherwise anything else you vote for would be nullified, void, not counted just like 64 or 80 option did. Basically your vote would mean nothing.

[Mario Gaborović]

I don't see why they didn't. There are for example 85 countries sending in films to the academy awards, and those are non-english only, so adding english speaking counties we could probably reach 96.

96/4=24. 24/3=8. 8/2=4. 4/2=2. 2/2=1. 39 rounds.
Or if that is to many, 72 should absolutely be in reach. (72/3=24. 24/3=8. 8/2=4. 4/2=2. 2/2=1. 39 rounds.)

It seems most people think a total runtime of about a year is best. With 39 rounds it will take about 1.5 years.

I wouldn't mind if we start a bit earlier than New Year's Eve, say Catholic Xmas (25th of December).

[joachimt]

Final poll question added. Voting deadline: October the 10th

[Nathan Treadway]

I don't see why they didn't. There are for example 85 countries sending in films to the academy awards, and those are non-english only, so adding english speaking counties we could probably reach 96.

96/4=24. 24/3=8. 8/2=4. 4/2=2. 2/2=1. 39 rounds.
Or if that is to many, 72 should absolutely be in reach. (72/3=24. 24/3=8. 8/2=4. 4/2=2. 2/2=1. 39 rounds.)

That's unlikely to be voted for, so that's why you should at least vote for what's more probable: 48 (brokenface's system). Otherwise anything else you vote for would be nullified, void, not counted just like 64 or 80 option did. Basically your vote would mean nothing.

Speaking in true democratic fashion.

[sacmersault]

64 countries Round 1: groups of 4 with best 2 proceeding. Other rounds one-on-one.

[Mario Gaborović]

64 countries Round 1: groups of 4 with best 2 proceeding. Other rounds one-on-one.

Have you read the previous posts? There was no interest in such a big format, so we offered five solutions listed on the Page 1. You can vote for two options.

[Angel Glez]

Whatever you decide is fine with me. Having said that I think the old format is the best one because the first round (where all managers are still alive and all participants are fresh) should be the big filter, with knockout after that.

[Gershwin]

I prefer option 2, or otherwise option 3. I don't like having too many countries, I don't like having too many films, and I don't like a very fast pace (which would mean I'd have to skip some rounds).

[Armoreska]

Looks like R1 with 4 countries and half proceeding is comfortably winning, and the amount of countries will depend on how many managers sign up (so probably 48 again)?

[Mario Gaborović]

Looks like R1 with 4 countries and half proceeding is comfortably winning, and the amount of countries will depend on how many managers sign up (so probably 48 again)?

We can easily sign-up for three to manage, no problem. I like when you say "comfortably winning", the big countries' managers will get loose and then I'm gonna seal their destiny with Moldova:

https://rusorel.info/blogs/wp-content/u ... t-1968.jpg

[jvv]

Round 1 will have 48 movies from the 1st of January till the 2nd of July, so 8 movies a month averagely (if you haven't seen anything yet).

I think an average of 8 movies per month is too much.

I already had a problem keeping up with 6.5 movies per month.

[Mario Gaborović]

Round 1 will have 48 movies from the 1st of January till the 2nd of July, so 8 movies a month averagely (if you haven't seen anything yet).

I think an average of 8 movies per month is too much.

I already had a problem keeping up with 6.5 movies per month.

You guys are forgetting that some of these films you've probably seen before; to greater or lesser degree.

I dunno which ones are going to be chosen ofc, but let's say that 15% is very likely.

[joachimt]

Round 1 will have 48 movies from the 1st of January till the 2nd of July, so 8 movies a month averagely (if you haven't seen anything yet).

I think an average of 8 movies per month is too much.

I already had a problem keeping up with 6.5 movies per month.

Slower means it would be 4 weeks with 1 week overlap or 5 weeks with 2 weeks overlap. I'll do some calculations about that....... later.