Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Well if someone really wants to draft one person for multiple important roles I think that shouldn't be allowed but I don't really care because I think that works against your movie in every scenario anyway.
Post by SupeЯfuЯЯyanimal on May 17, 2017 17:27:51 GMT -5
I mean you can argue that people negotiate and take pay cuts for passion projects or maybe take a back-end percentage. That's sometimes true. But for the purpose of the draft the best way to do it would be to consider different roles as taking another draft spot because that's the most realistic way to view it from a producer's POV.
Drafting someone should give you the right to use that person in any way you see fit. If they have multiple talents you should be able to use them. Requiring someone to draft a person multiple times to use in different positions doesn't add anything to the game, it'll just make it more tedious
But if you draft someone and say, "this person is going to be the director and the lead actor and do the score," and then you go on to draft your remaining 11 picks, you've basically gotten two more picks than everyone else. That doesn't seem fair to me.
I don't agree. This isn't like the Bonnaroo draft where adding more acts does increase the value of the festival. Piling on actors does not make a movie greater, great pairings of creativity and acting do. Also, outside of a handful of people there aren't many people who can fill those 3 roles at the highest caliber, for the most part they would just be diluting their movies quality. If a person participating in the draft does find an artist they can convince the a majority of people voting they can fill those roles and do a great job then kudos to them for identifying them and having a great draft strategy
Drafting someone should give you the right to use that person in any way you see fit. If they have multiple talents you should be able to use them. Requiring someone to draft a person multiple times to use in different positions doesn't add anything to the game, it'll just make it more tedious
I wish I could have used Bill Murray in multiple ways...
But if you draft someone and say, "this person is going to be the director and the lead actor and do the score," and then you go on to draft your remaining 11 picks, you've basically gotten two more picks than everyone else. That doesn't seem fair to me.
I don't agree. This isn't like the Bonnaroo where adding more acts does increase the value of the festival. Piling on actors does not make a movie greater, great pairings of creativity and acting do. Also, outside of a handful of people there aren't many people who can fill those 3 roles at the highest caliber, for the most part they would just be diluting their movies quality. If a person participating in the draft does find an artist they can convince the a majority of people voting they can fill those roles and do a great job then kudos to them for identifying them and having a great draft strategy
By having additional actors, you get to make additional pairings. If everyone gets 12 picks to fill 12 roles, it's not fair for someone to take use 12 picks to fill 14 roles.
Regardless, cdevaney reserved the right to decide any rule changes before the start of the game, so it's really up to him to decide what he wants to do. I said my piece on what I think is fair, as have others, but I'm happy to go with whatever he sets as the rule.
Here we go. If we're going to start this stuff, I might be out, actually. It takes the fun out of it. Just draft the people you want and if you want them to do all these different things you're probably going to lose anyhow, even if you "get more picks." Everyone gets a certain amount of picks. Do with them what you want. I used a bunch of mine on comedy and some didn't even have a comedy lineup for the last thing. Those who didn't include comedy didn't make a realistic lineup, so when people voted they noticed. It'll take care of itself.
Not sure if by "this stuff" you mean the dispute/discussion itself or someone's stance on it. Regardless, I hope you don't quit. I figured we were just killing time anyway, so I was going to put my opinion on the record.
Here we go. If we're going to start this stuff, I might be out, actually. It takes the fun out of it. Just draft the people you want and if you want them to do all these different things you're probably going to lose anyhow, even if you "get more picks." Everyone gets a certain amount of picks. Do with them what you want. I used a bunch of mine on comedy and some didn't even have a comedy lineup for the last thing. Those who didn't include comedy didn't make a realistic lineup, so when people voted they noticed. It'll take care of itself.
Not sure if by "this stuff" you mean the dispute/discussion itself or someone's stance on it. Regardless, I hope you don't quit . I figured we were just killing time anyway, so I was going to put my opinion on the record.
Yeah, I'm not really sure why there's such a negative reaction to a basic discussion about how the rules should apply? I don't care, I'm not even doing this. If I knew people were going to fucking cry about it I wouldn't have even responded.
Here we go. If we're going to start this stuff, I might be out, actually. It takes the fun out of it. Just draft the people you want and if you want them to do all these different things you're probably going to lose anyhow, even if you "get more picks." Everyone gets a certain amount of picks. Do with them what you want. I used a bunch of mine on comedy and some didn't even have a comedy lineup for the last thing. Those who didn't include comedy didn't make a realistic lineup, so when people voted they noticed. It'll take care of itself.
I personally would rather have this all upfront though. The issue with the Roo draft was that we just jumped right in.
I think for this specific case just having it so that three people can't have different roles of Eastwood is sufficient. Because black bush(?) is pretty on the nose that just having a large cast isn't the same as a large bill.
Also, it kind of works the same with undercard, if you're 9th billed actor is Tom Hanks that doesn't make any sense, and should be counted against.
Not sure if by "this stuff" you mean the dispute/discussion itself or someone's stance on it. Regardless, I hope you don't quit . I figured we were just killing time anyway, so I was going to put my opinion on the record.
Yeah, I'm not really sure why there's such a negative reaction to a basic discussion about how the rules should apply? I don't care, I'm not even doing this. If I knew people were going to fucking cry about it I wouldn't have even responded.
Drafting someone should give you the right to use that person in any way you see fit. If they have multiple talents you should be able to use them. Requiring someone to draft a person multiple times to use in different positions doesn't add anything to the game, it'll just make it more tedious
I wish I could have used Bill Murray in multiple ways...
You could. You just needed to use a UDFA spot for the additional ones.
17) Once an individual has been drafted, their role must be designated. If being used for multiple roles, each role would be considered a draft pick. (E.g., Say Tom Pink is drafted in the first round and then designated as the director of the film. If they are also going to be designated as an actor in the film, this would need to be "drafted" in a subsequent round.)
So for this, if Tom Pink (director) is drafted, nobody but that drafter can take Tom Pink (actor).
17) Once an individual has been drafted, their role must be designated. If being used for multiple roles, each role would be considered a draft pick. (E.g., Say Tom Pink is drafted in the first round and then designated as the director of the film. If they are also going to be designated as an actor in the film, this would need to be "drafted" in a subsequent round.)
So for this, if Tom Pink (director) is drafted, nobody but that drafter can take Tom Pink (actor).
The OP has been updated. Before I get the draft order, anybody have any changes or objections that they want to address?
Nobody can remake Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo. Nobody!
I'm not making that rule. Would you like to a) join and b) draft it? You can then draft a different movie for the remainder of the draft. Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo would be safe from being remade in that scenario. You in?
Better now than later. How would you ruin it, if you wanted to?
What about remakes of remakes?
For example, The Magnificent Seven (both of them) are remakes of Seven Samurai. If someone drafted Seven Samurai, would The Magnificent Seven become ineligible?
Nobody can remake Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo. Nobody!
I'm not making that rule. Would you like to a) join and b) draft it? You can then draft a different movie for the remainder of the draft. Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo would be safe from being remade in that scenario. You in?
Sure. I'm turning some classic into a flying piece of shit directed by Uwe Boll. Unless I get a good draft number.... maybe.
Better now than later. How would you ruin it, if you wanted to?
What about remakes of remakes?
For example, The Magnificent Seven (both of them) are remakes of Seven Samurai. If someone drafted Seven Samurai, would The Magnificent Seven become ineligible?
I think that the proper approach is to draft the original. That would take the remakes off the board.
17) Once an individual has been drafted, their role must be designated. If being used for multiple roles, each role would be considered a draft pick. (E.g., Say Tom Pink is drafted in the first round and then designated as the director of the film. If they are also going to be designated as an actor in the film, this would need to be "drafted" in a subsequent round.)
So for this, if Tom Pink (director) is drafted, nobody but that drafter can take Tom Pink (actor).
