Film World Cup - Season 3 - Discussion before preparation

[Pretentious Hipster]

I'd say the format is fine the way it is. However, for some reason I completely lost interest in both managing a country and participating in this.

Do you personally think that the overall quality of 80 films isn't satisfying?

I wouldn't say that, but the outcome of most of the matches in the previous seasons was too frustrating.

It could always be improved, but think I'm well-versed enough in international cinema. I'd rather go through a Dennis Grunes list though or the official country lists (which I am doing now anyways) at my own pace instead of a competition.

[Mario Gaborović]

I'd rather go through a Dennis Grunes list though or the official country lists (which I am doing now anyways) at my own pace instead of a competition.

You've got three months for that, man.

[Lonewolf2003]

I miss monty's unavoidable question about doing a sex comedy round.




But seriously, the idea of doing set genres (some) rounds does still appeal to me.

[Mario Gaborović]

I miss monty's unavoidable question about doing a sex comedy round.

He was only saying that in order to persuade people to choose weak films, so he could easily beat them.

[zhangalan]

For the schedule, I like the idea of 4 films per match in the opening round, and then the top 2 proceeding to the elimination stage, just like in the soccer World Cup.

I like this idea. When only one movie gets through in the first pool phase it can be a bit unlucky for some, sometimes it is so close between two of them, this seems to give a bit of an extra chance if you're in such a "pool of death"

I agree with this.
Luck played quite a big part in the last two seasons, especially in the case of Egypt. Not meaning that it didn't deserve it (and Tommy has done a great job as a manager). But I think there are many great films worth to win and so the corresponding countries worth to advance. They lost simply because they faced tougher opponents. If we have 4 films a group and the top two of each group advance, it would be fairer. And for those who complain the duration of the whole cup is too way, we are able to shorten the duration a bit through this way. Personally I favour 3.5 weeks for each group in the group stage.

And we had tried 3 films a group in the past, so let's try something new.

[zhangalan]

I have only two suggestions:

1) That Group A consists of films which have the fewest number of checks in total after initial draw, as we learned that the voting is most vibrant at the very beginning. That way some balance between groups could be achieved.

2) Raise the bar at 1200 checks; it would gain more votes, and that way haters of "obscure" films couldn't complain.

Regarding suggestion #1, it sounds a good idea.
However, I prefer it to be the second or the third match.
The first match would be better if it is something big since we can attract newbies to the Cup this way, so I suggest that maybe we should use the group involving the champion of last season as the beginning match.

[joachimt]

If we do four movies in round 1 and two of each group proceed, then we should choose between 32 and 64 countries. With 64 countries, we end up with 32 countries in round 2, which means 16 matches in round 2. The whole cup would be significantly longer than previous versions or we should raise the pace a lot.

So with this idea it should be 32 countries. If the group phase is just as long, it would mean watching an extra movie in round 1 in the same time. That way, the total runtime of the WC is the same as last season.

[beavis]

32 countries could still be cool
but then let's try to mix it up a bit though... what about having countries that lost two times in a row in round one kept on the bench for one cup? or something along those lines, to guarantee a certain percentage of new countries in each cup?

i really like the idea of 4 countries competing first with two advancing, so if 32 makes that feasible, it has my vote

[Mario Gaborović]

what about having countries that lost two times in a row in round one kept on the bench for one cup? or something along those lines, to guarantee a certain percentage of new countries in each cup?

That's only Belgium and Philippines; they lost against all four opponents. Maybe a poll question should decide whether participants wanna see them again or not.

[beavis]

what about having countries that lost two times in a row in round one kept on the bench for one cup? or something along those lines, to guarantee a certain percentage of new countries in each cup?

That's only Belgium and Philippines; they lost against all four opponents. Maybe a poll question should decide whether participants wanna see them again or not.

if it's only two that idea won't do much to force a mixing up

and Belgium just had bad luck two time in a row... ;)

[Mario Gaborović]

what about having countries that lost two times in a row in round one kept on the bench for one cup? or something along those lines, to guarantee a certain percentage of new countries in each cup?

That's only Belgium and Philippines; they lost against all four opponents. Maybe a poll question should decide whether participants wanna see them again or not.

if it's only two that idea won't do much to force a mixing up

and Belgium just had bad luck two time in a row... ;)

If we can't find a consensus between 32 and 48 countries (two large groups obviously), here's my suggestion: 40. It would be a 10x4 format, with group winners and 6 best runners-up in the second round, 1vs1 from then on.
It also would be a different thing, as Armoreska suggested.

[Mario Gaborović]

Shall we start signing-up countries already, or you think it's too early? That would remedy all dilemmas. Then you can take your chosen team to Antalya for a quarantine.

For this evening, I'm planning to make a list of countries that didn't participate so far, with five most notable films with subs available. It would be handy for preparation, and I hope make people decide for 48 countries instead of 32.

[Lonewolf2003]

I'm for head-to-head all the way. But if we do groups, groups of 4 sound better than of 3, either with 32 or Marios suggestion of 40 movies.

[Gershwin]

I'm for head-to-head all the way. But if we do groups, groups of 4 sound better than of 3, either with 32 or Marios suggestion of 40 movies.

[Fergenaprido]

I also prefer the 4-in-round-one version with 32 countries, but I'm also okay with 40 countries as per Mario's proposal.

[joachimt]

Shall we start signing-up countries already, or you think it's too early?

Too early. Let's decide first how to do it. It's not like we can't come up with 48 countries to participate, so that's not the problem.

I'll do some calculations on different schedules that have been proposed so far.

[joachimt]

I don't think we should change the pace. There's not a clear consensus in that poll. There are votes both for faster and slower. Too fast might scare away new participants. Too slow might mean low activity in the match-threads and people might lose interest.

[Mario Gaborović]

You may still add two additional polls: 1) Should Belgium and Philippines be absent for this cup because of four losses they made, 2) Should Egypt and Chile be placed in the Pot 1 as a reward for making the QF.

[joachimt]

You may still add two additional polls: 1) Should Belgium and Philippines be absent for this cup because of four losses they made, 2) Should Egypt and Chile be placed in the Pot 1 as a reward for making the QF.

1) I don't think we should ask this question at all. If someone wants to try to do better with one of those countries, that's fine.
2) Let's decide those things later.

[sortile9io]

So it looks like we're heading for a faster version of last year's tournament. Is there a deadline for this poll?

[Mario Gaborović]

So it looks like we're heading for a faster version of last year's tournament. Is there a deadline for this poll?

Maybe around December 1st, as we agreed to start around Xmas (what's better than Xmas movie marathon??). This way or another, I'm happy to see that we're leaning towards 48.

I understand what beavis said, that he didn't feel like a country had a real chance with one movie only, so two countries advancing from a group would be more straight. Yet everybody think like that, I mean some must drop out; you can't have a quarterfinals with 25 countries because eventually the number needs to be narrowed down to 1. One time you'll get easy draw, the second time tougher, there's no rule/justice and life is absurd (as Camus would put it).

[joachimt]

So it looks like we're heading for a faster version of last year's tournament. Is there a deadline for this poll?

No deadline. The activity on this topic is going down, so it's time to make some decisions. I'll look into it later this week.

[joachimt]

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

How do you come to this conclusion? For the question about the duration there are the most votes for 9-12 months, so that would assume a faster version. However, the question about the pace doesn't give very clear answers. So I'm not convinced to make the tournament shorter.

Another point is the 4-country group phase with 2 proceeding. That is a nice idea and lots of people seem to think so, but that won't work with 48, unless we go with the suggestion of only allowing the best 4 #2's to proceed. So that's the only change I think would have enough people in favor for.

[brokenface]

You could have:

R1 - 48 - groups of 4, 2 qualify
R2 - 24 - groups of 3, 1 qualifies
QF - 8
SF - 4
F -2

It'd be 8 more films than the way we did it last time (R2 goes from 16 - 24).

[joachimt]

I just did some calculations on the idea of 12 group winners + 4 best #2's. If we let matches of four countries run for 3 weeks with 1 week overlap, just like we did last year with 3 movies in each match, than we win a few weeks. It will be exactly done within one year. It would mean the pace in round 1 is higher with a factor 1.33. The rest of the pace could be the same as last time.

[Lonewolf2003]

I just did some calculations on the idea of 12 group winners + 4 best #2's. If we let matches of four countries run for 3 weeks with 1 week overlap, just like we did last year with 3 movies in each match, than we win a few weeks. It will be exactly done within one year. It would mean the pace in round 1 is higher with a factor 1.33. The rest of the pace could be the same as last time.

That sounds good.

[Mario Gaborović]

You could have:

R1 - 48 - groups of 4, 2 qualify
R2 - 24 - groups of 3, 1 qualifies
QF - 8
SF - 4
F -2

It'd be 8 more films than the way we did it last time (R2 goes from 16 - 24).

This system, which is very similar to that of basketball tournaments, goes in favor of countries that claim depth in quality, I believe. First round it's easier to pass, but then the second is much tougher than usual Round of 16 would have been in another situation.

Very nice, very nice.

[joachimt]

I just did some calculations on the idea of 12 group winners + 4 best #2's. If we let matches of four countries run for 3 weeks with 1 week overlap, just like we did last year with 3 movies in each match, than we win a few weeks. It will be exactly done within one year. It would mean the pace in round 1 is higher with a factor 1.33. The rest of the pace could be the same as last time.

That sounds good.

I'm not sure though if I like the best #2's idea. What exactly is the best #2? I would like it to be the country that was closest to the #1 of its group. If we have three countries with scores very close, will that #2 proceed? Or will it be the #2 from a group with one terrible movie so #2 gets a lot of points there.

Mario probably has some answers to this.

[sortile9io]

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).

[joachimt]

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).

That 12 was 11 when I looked an hour ago. I thought 11-8 is not a clear result.

[Mario Gaborović]

I just did some calculations on the idea of 12 group winners + 4 best #2's. If we let matches of four countries run for 3 weeks with 1 week overlap, just like we did last year with 3 movies in each match, than we win a few weeks. It will be exactly done within one year. It would mean the pace in round 1 is higher with a factor 1.33. The rest of the pace could be the same as last time.

That sounds good.

I'm not sure though if I like the best #2's idea. What exactly is the best #2? I would like it to be the country that was closest to the #1 of its group. If we have three countries with scores very close, will that #2 proceed? Or will it be the #2 from a group with one terrible movie so #2 gets a lot of points there.

Mario probably has some answers to this.

Second-bests might be films that came second, but they were closest of winning the group (narrowest margin of their loss against group winner). However I don't think that's fair, and as I posted above, brokenface suggested best system IMO, and it's a fresh one as well. Why?

1) Larger number of countries would have a chance + display themselves
2) Second batch is much tougher to win; had Egypt competed last year with not brilliant film such as Al-boustaguy in a group of 3, I doubt it will reach 4th place later. The depth in quality decides.
3) Almost no difference would be in general pace, I think the whole thing would last even shorter.

[joachimt]

I just did some calculations on brokenface's proposal.

Round 1:
12 matches of groups of 4. Each match lasts 3 weeks, with 1 week overlap.

Round 2:
8 matches of groups of 3. Each match lasts 17 days with 1 week overlap.

Remaining 7 matches (QF, SF, F):
Each match lasts 2 weeks with half a week overlap.

This means the 20 matches of round 1 and 2 have a higher pace than last cup (factor 1.33 and 1.24). From the QF the pace is the same.

With a few days in between rounds for preparations, it would fit just about in one year with 88 movies.

[Mario Gaborović]

You didn't count in the third place match. I guess people would agree.

[joachimt]

You didn't count in the third place match. I guess people would agree.

Two weeks longer than one year then.

In the complete cup, the pace would go from about 5.3 movies a month to 7.3 movies a month.

[joachimt]

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).

That 12 was 11 when I looked an hour ago. I thought 11-8 is not a clear result.

Oh right, you counted 1+11 = 12. You're right.

[sortile9io]

You didn't count in the third place match. I guess people would agree.

Two weeks longer than one year then.

In the complete cup, the pace would go from about 5.3 movies a month to 7.3 movies a month.

Fine, that fits approximately the faster tournament option but we have 0 votes in the "something else (please clarify)" schedule choice.

[monty]

Hehe, here we go again. Anyhow, I vote for another sex comedy match, especially considering the previous one was such a big hit here (Mario, I'm looking at you in particular.)

[monty]

I'd say the format is fine the way it is. However, for some reason I completely lost interest in both managing a country and participating in this.

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?

[Mario Gaborović]

I'd say the format is fine the way it is. However, for some reason I completely lost interest in both managing a country and participating in this.

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.

[monty]

I'd say the format is fine the way it is. However, for some reason I completely lost interest in both managing a country and participating in this.

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.