AFI's Top 100 Movies
WQ
a decade ago, it's interesting that not even one film made since 2000
got on the list. In fact, 84 of the films on the list were made
between the Golden Age of 1931 and 1982, an era bracketed by City
Lights and Blade Runner. That's 84 films in a 51-year period compared
to only 16 in the last 25 years. Well, they really don't make movies
anymore anyway, do they? All they're really doing now is just spewing
out disposable product. I guess that's why it's been harder for the
AFI to find many classics in the last quarter century. Personally,
one post-2000 film I would've liked to have seen make the list is Kill
Bill 1.
Dowell
"WQ" <w...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1182407093.5...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I agree with you. There were some excellent movies that were overlooked.
These lists always become somewhat subjective.
However, I also agree with the AFI that suggests that the list should be a
"starting point" for discussion.
BTW, you mentioned:
> "...it's interesting that not even one film made since 2000
> got on the list."
IIRC, "The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring" was in production in
2000 and 2001, and was released in late December 2001.
However, to me, that does not diminish your point. Some truly great movies
have been produced in the past ten years and they should not be ignored.
As more and more TV channels feature movies, and HD emerges, "great movies"
will become a larger part of television viewing.
Dowell
I am glad that "Blade Runner" and "The Shawshank Redemption" made the list,
even though "Blade Runner," to me, was ranked far too low.
Obveeus
"Dowell" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I am glad that "Blade Runner" and "The Shawshank Redemption" made the
> list,
> even though "Blade Runner," to me, was ranked far too low.
If Bladerunner was on the list, then the list is automatically invalid.
Bladerunner has as much right to be listed as one of the Top100 movies of
all time as Cherry 2000 does.
WQ
> "WQ" <w...@email.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182407093.5...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Since the CBS AFI special was supposed to be an update of the list of
> > a decade ago, it's interesting that not even one film made since 2000
> > got on the list. In fact, 84 of the films on the list were made
> > between the Golden Age of 1931 and 1982, an era bracketed by City
> > Lights and Blade Runner. That's 84 films in a 51-year period compared
> > to only 16 in the last 25 years. Well, they really don't make movies
> > anymore anyway, do they? All they're really doing now is just spewing
> > out disposable product. I guess that's why it's been harder for the
> > AFI to find many classics in the last quarter century. Personally,
> > one post-2000 film I would've liked to have seen make the list is Kill
> > Bill 1.
>
> I agree with you. There were some excellent movies that were overlooked.
> These lists always become somewhat subjective.
>
> However, I also agree with the AFI that suggests that the list should be a
> "starting point" for discussion.
>
> BTW, you mentioned:
>
> > "...it's interesting that not even one film made since 2000
> > got on the list."
>
> IIRC, "The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring" was in production in
> 2000 and 2001, and was released in late December 2001.
--- Looks like I overlooked that one as the only post-2000 film to
make the list.
> However, to me, that does not diminish your point. Some truly great movies
> have been produced in the past ten years and they should not be ignored.
--- Yes, it still doesn't diminish my point, but I'm just wondering
what truly great movies have been produced in the past ten years. I
used to be able to come up with them easily because I used to see them
more often, but I just don't see any greatness in films anymore.
> As more and more TV channels feature movies, and HD emerges, "great movies"
> will become a larger part of television viewing.
--- On the contrary, the more you have anything, the more that junk
will overwhelm the greatness.
WQ
--- Blade Runner was an instant classic the day I saw it when it was
first released. Some films just are that way. While admittedly it
loses much of its awe when watching it on the tube, it's clearly one
of those rare movies that totally envelopes and fascinates you with
its mood and atmosphere when seen on the big screen. It's still one
whose visual impact at least sticks in my mind fresh 25 years later
while most other films have simply evaporated from memory.
Obveeus
"WQ" <w...@email.com> wrote:
> --- On the contrary, the more you have anything, the more that junk
> will overwhelm the greatness.
So we would be better off going back to the time when schlock like Gone With
the Wind got released year after year after year and people had no choice
but to watch the same film 30 times?
Victor Velazquez
> --- On the contrary, the more you have anything, the more that junk
> will overwhelm the greatness.
I would think that the more of something you have, the more of the good
stuff you'd keep around, so while we continually produce the same ratio of
good to crap, we're also building up a surplus of mostly good.
Or did you imagine people watching "Armageddon" in twenty years?
Wong
WQ
--- Obviously you didn't live through that time, did you? GWTW was
never re-released annually and it wasn't the only movie made either
between 1939 and the day you acquired consciousness.
WQ
> "WQ" <w...@email.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182436211.3...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > --- On the contrary, the more you have anything, the more that junk
> > will overwhelm the greatness.
>
> I would think that the more of something you have, the more of the good
> stuff you'd keep around, so while we continually produce the same ratio of
> good to crap, we're also building up a surplus of mostly good.
--- You'll have to prove that math to me. If you look at TV alone,
can you honestly say that there's the same ration of good to bad in a
300-channel universe as there was in a 3-channel one? If you're only
watching 20 hours a week that you find worth watching now and you
would've been watching the same number of hours per week in the 3-
channel days, then that disproves what you claim. Even if you watched
only 5 hours in a 3-channel universe, the ratio of good to bad back
then would still be greater than 20 hours in a 300-channel universe
now, or .08% vs. .00033% based on a 168-hour broadcast week [or a full
24/7 sked] for every channel. So that means to equal 5 hours of
terrific viewing each week in a 3-channel universe, you'd have to
watch about 483 hours of terrific viewing each week now [or .08% of
60,400 hours]. Are there 483 hours of terrific viewing worth watching
week after week in the course of a regular season now? Of course
not. The junk has overwhelmed the good stuff.
Obveeus
"WQ" <w...@email.com> wrote:
> GWTW was never re-released annually
It sat around in the theater for many years.
Nowadays, technology like DVDs exist. Before that, VCRs. As a result,
there is no longer any need/market for the same movie to be in the theaters
year after year. Your fondness of all things dusty does not make them
worthy.
WQ
--- Yeah, first in 1939 and then re-released in 1941, 1942, 1947,
1954, 1961, 1967, 1974, 1989 and 1998. Hardly each and every year,
more like once every 6 years on average. And most of those re-
releases were in limited venues, not in wide distribution. In the
meantime, about 3,000 other movies came and went in that 60-year
period, so it's not like GWTW dominated the screens and there was
nothing else to see.
Kelvin
post-2000 film to make it.
Barry Margolin
WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2:37 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "WQ" <w...@email.com> wrote:
> > > GWTW was never re-released annually
> >
> > It sat around in the theater for many years.
> >
> > Nowadays, technology like DVDs exist. Before that, VCRs. As a result,
> > there is no longer any need/market for the same movie to be in the theaters
> > year after year. Your fondness of all things dusty does not make them
> > worthy.
>
> --- Yeah, first in 1939 and then re-released in 1941, 1942, 1947,
> 1954, 1961, 1967, 1974, 1989 and 1998. Hardly each and every year,
> more like once every 6 years on average.
Notice that the frequency dropped significantly around the time that TV
made it to the consumer market. If you want to keep showing an old
movie, it's much easier to do it by broadcasting it than distributing
hundreds or thousands of prints to theatres. Before TV, theatre
distribution was the only choice, so movies stayed in theatres longer
and the good ones were rereleased.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
zaryza...@yahoo.com
> That's 84 films in a 51-year period compared
> to only 16 in the last 25 years. Well, they really don't make movies
> anymore anyway, do they? All they're really doing now is just spewing
> out disposable product. I guess that's why it's been harder for the
> AFI to find many classics in the last quarter century.
It takes time and perspective to determine a work of art's greatness.
The reason why it's easier to tell what movies are great in the
pre-1980 period is that we've had a few decades to reflect on them. In
another 25 years maybe we'll decide that more movies from this era
belong on the list, but they might not be the movies we like now.
If they had made a list of the best movies of the last 20 years in,
say, 1950, I'm not sure whether they'd rank the films that eventually
ended up on this AFI list the same way we rank them today. Indeed,
Citizen Kane, which almost always ends up on the top of these lists,
didn't even win the Oscar for best picture of 1941 when it came out,
and now it's considered not only the best film of 1941 but of any year
by many people. A few decades of thinking will do that.
(For trivia buffs, "How Green was My Valley" won the oscar for best
picture of 1941. It was actually an excellent film too, so it's not
totally undeserving in that win.)
zaryza...@yahoo.com
> --- You'll have to prove that math to me. If you look at TV alone,
> can you honestly say that there's the same ration of good to bad in a
> 300-channel universe as there was in a 3-channel one? If you're only
> watching 20 hours a week that you find worth watching now and you
> would've been watching the same number of hours per week in the 3-
> channel days, then that disproves what you claim.
I would disagree with your analysis on two basic points. First, it's
hard to compare programs on a lot of channels today, or at least it's
harder than it was in the past. When there were only 3 channels, each
one tended to show roughly the same kind of show - some dramas, some
comedies, news, movies, etc., in roughly equal proportions. It's hard
to compare the general programming on, say, NBC, with that of a
speciality channel like the Food channel. If you're a food preparation
nut, then clearly the TV is much better today. Likewise if you're
into sports, because there are multiple channels all devoted to 24
hour a day sports broadcasting and analysis. But it all depends on
what you like as to whether this constitutes a good thing or not.
But I have another disagreement with your analysis. To me, it's not at
all relevant what proportion of the total viewing possiblities are
good or bad. What I care about is this: How likely am I to find
something I want to watch when I turn on the TV? If there are only 3
channels, the answer is that there are plenty of times when I won't
find something good. But today, I'm almost guaranteed to find at least
something I want to watch at any hour of the day, every day of the
year. Are there times when I don't find something I want to watch?
Sure, but if I'm being honest with myself it's because I just don't
feel like watching TV at all at that particular moment, and not
because I would have found something if you subtracted 497 of the 500
channels that come through.
Now, it's true that if you claim that you would have found 20 hours
per week to watch in the 3 channel universe, and 20 hours in the 500
universe, it means that there's a lot of junk in the 500 channel
universe. But first of all, I seriously doubt whether that's true -
it's easy to remember the past with rose colored glasses. Secondly,
even if it were true, it would only indicate how inefficient TV is in
producing good programming today - not a measure of how a lack of good
programming.
Steven L.
> On Jun 21, 10:51 am, "Victor Velazquez" <victhr...@notnow.com> wrote:
>> "WQ" <w...@email.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1182436211.3...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> --- On the contrary, the more you have anything, the more that junk
>>> will overwhelm the greatness.
>> I would think that the more of something you have, the more of the good
>> stuff you'd keep around, so while we continually produce the same ratio of
>> good to crap, we're also building up a surplus of mostly good.
>
> --- You'll have to prove that math to me. If you look at TV alone,
> can you honestly say that there's the same ration of good to bad in a
> 300-channel universe as there was in a 3-channel one?
"Good" as defined by whom? According to what standard?
For all we know, there might be terrific stuff on The Golf Channel--if
you're a golf fan. Otherwise it doesn't matter how terrific it is, you
won't give it a try.
When all we had was a 3 channel universe, golf enthusiasts had NO
entertainment options to indulge their hobby whatsoever. Back in the
1950s, the entire notion of a channel devoted to golf would have been
unimaginable, so golf enthusiasts had no idea what they were missing.
Adult entertainment is another market that just wasn't being satisfied
by the 3 channel universe. The Big 3 networks wouldn't dare put a show
like "Deadwood" on prime time because the FCC wouldn't have permitted
it, and the networks had to cater to the mass market which included
families. Again, back in the 1950s, Americans couldn't imagine having
soft-core porn broadcast right into their homes, and so they never
thought about asking for it. But once it was made available, it's
proven quite popular (ask any hotel how many of their guests pay to
watch those movies on pay-per-view).
The 3-channel universe might have provided decent programming--for the
lowest common denominator. Yes, there was Edward R. Murrow's "See it
Now." But there was also "Kukla, Fran and Ollie," "Captain Video," and
a ton of other junk.
So the total ratio number is absolutely irrelevant. What matters is
whether each INDIVIDUAL viewer is more or less satisfied with the
choices available to them. And the proof that the 300 channel universe
is worth something is in the millions of subscribers who pay extra for
it, beyond what basic cable offers.
This is not a new concept. Do you have a public library in your town?
The value of a huge public library like the Library of Congress is *NOT*
in the ratio of "useful" books to "useless" books (as compared with some
other smaller library). Rather, its value is in the range of research
options any individual researcher has at his fingertips. Because no one
knows whether some arcane book that you personally would never think of
reading, might be of tremendous value to some other young scholar
someday. That's why it's still kept around--just in case.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
The AFI list is clearly not the "Top 100" as measured solely by artistic
worth. It's more like the "Top 100" of classic movies that most
Americans remember fondly. And those aren't the same thing.
An obscure movie made by an independent filmmaker, for example, isn't
going to end up on any such list no matter how excellent it was.
Perhaps AFI should also have a separate list, "AFI Top 100 Hidden Gems,"
that lists superior movies that are either forgotten or underrated?
On rec.arts.movies.past-films and rec.arts.sf.movies, we've sometimes
discussed and recommended such "hidden gems."
WQ
> On Jun 21, 2:24 am, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > That's 84 films in a 51-year period compared
> > to only 16 in the last 25 years. Well, they really don't make movies
> > anymore anyway, do they? All they're really doing now is just spewing
> > out disposable product. I guess that's why it's been harder for the
> > AFI to find many classics in the last quarter century.
>
> It takes time and perspective to determine a work of art's greatness.
> The reason why it's easier to tell what movies are great in the
> pre-1980 period is that we've had a few decades to reflect on them. In
> another 25 years maybe we'll decide that more movies from this era
> belong on the list, but they might not be the movies we like now.
>
> If they had made a list of the best movies of the last 20 years in,
> say, 1950, I'm not sure whether they'd rank the films that eventually
> ended up on this AFI list the same way we rank them today. Indeed,
> Citizen Kane, which almost always ends up on the top of these lists,
> didn't even win the Oscar for best picture of 1941 when it came out,
> and now it's considered not only the best film of 1941 but of any year
> by many people. A few decades of thinking will do that.
--- While that may be true, I'm not sure one could find much more than
the 14 films [I thought it was 16, but it's only 14] of the last 25
years that appeared on the list. Since the first 50 years or so
averaged 43 films for each 25 years, that would mean the last 25 years
would have to have an additional 29 presently undiscovered gems to be
included in some future list. Can 29 other films that have been made
since 1982 be found besides the ones that were found so far?
8. Schindler's List - 1993
50. The Lord of the Rings - 2001
68. Unforgiven - 1992
71. Saving Private Ryan - 1998
72. The Shawshank Redemption - 1994
74. The Silence of the Lambs - 1991
76. Forrest Gump - 1994
83. Titanic - 1997
86. Platoon - 1986
89. The Sixth Sense - 1999
92. Goodfellas - 1990
94. Pulp Fiction - 1994
96. Do the Right Thing - 1989
99. Toy Story - 1995
Steven L.
As I tried to explain to WQ, it's very hard to judge programming anymore
because niche markets have to be judged by niche standards.
WQ has no way of knowing if the programming on The Golf Channel is great
or lousy, because he doesn't play golf. If he's not an aficionado of
adult entertainment, he can't judge the adult offerings on the premium
channels either.
So if we really want to know how "good" today's 300 channel universe is,
I have to ask a golf pro for his evaluation of The Golf Channel, I have
to ask you for your evaluation of The Food Channel, etc.
I'm sure WQ hasn't done all that homework.
Steven L.
> On Jun 21, 2:24 am, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
>> That's 84 films in a 51-year period compared
>> to only 16 in the last 25 years. Well, they really don't make movies
>> anymore anyway, do they? All they're really doing now is just spewing
>> out disposable product. I guess that's why it's been harder for the
>> AFI to find many classics in the last quarter century.
>
> It takes time and perspective to determine a work of art's greatness.
> The reason why it's easier to tell what movies are great in the
> pre-1980 period is that we've had a few decades to reflect on them.
No, it's more than that. This AFI list clearly has a popularity element
to it. These are the movies that the *public* remembers fondly as being
great. It leaves out "hidden gems"--movies that have stood the test of
time to receive acclaim from the artistic world, but which are not the
ones that most average Americans are likely to have watched.
In sci-fi movies, a favorite niche of mine, I know several "hidden gems"
that were terrific, but were never popular in America and are unlikely
to ever be.
WQ
> On Jun 21, 12:02 pm, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > --- You'll have to prove that math to me. If you look at TV alone,
> > can you honestly say that there's the same ration of good to bad in a
> > 300-channel universe as there was in a 3-channel one? If you're only
> > watching 20 hours a week that you find worth watching now and you
> > would've been watching the same number of hours per week in the 3-
> > channel days, then that disproves what you claim.
>
> I would disagree with your analysis on two basic points. First, it's
> hard to compare programs on a lot of channels today, or at least it's
> harder than it was in the past. When there were only 3 channels, each
> one tended to show roughly the same kind of show - some dramas, some
> comedies, news, movies, etc., in roughly equal proportions. It's hard
> to compare the general programming on, say, NBC, with that of a
> speciality channel like the Food channel. If you're a food preparation
> nut, then clearly the TV is much better today. Likewise if you're
> into sports, because there are multiple channels all devoted to 24
> hour a day sports broadcasting and analysis. But it all depends on
> what you like as to whether this constitutes a good thing or not.
--- It doesn't matter what you or anyone likes, it's irrelevant. It's
all about how much time you're spending watching stuff you like now
compared to a 3-channel universe and what that ratio amounts to. If
it was 5 hours per week then, regardless of what you watched, then
ratio-wise you should be watching 483 hours per week now in relation
to all that's available to watch for present-day TV to be equivalent
in quality to TV in the past. If you're watching less than 483 hours
per week now, then the total programming output of a 300-channel
universe is failing you in being as entertaining as the total
programming output of a 3-channel universe. It's in being numerical
about it that you can define the quality of the viewing for yourself
without having to agree with anyone else about what the real
definition of quality is, and I can pretty well guarantee you that
numerically, in ratio terms, everyone is watching much less TV now
than back then.
>
> But I have another disagreement with your analysis. To me, it's not at
> all relevant what proportion of the total viewing possiblities are
> good or bad. What I care about is this: How likely am I to find
> something I want to watch when I turn on the TV? If there are only 3
> channels, the answer is that there are plenty of times when I won't
> find something good. But today, I'm almost guaranteed to find at least
> something I want to watch at any hour of the day, every day of the
> year. Are there times when I don't find something I want to watch?
> Sure, but if I'm being honest with myself it's because I just don't
> feel like watching TV at all at that particular moment, and not
> because I would have found something if you subtracted 497 of the 500
> channels that come through.
>
> Now, it's true that if you claim that you would have found 20 hours
> per week to watch in the 3 channel universe, and 20 hours in the 500
> universe, it means that there's a lot of junk in the 500 channel
> universe. But first of all, I seriously doubt whether that's true -
> it's easy to remember the past with rose colored glasses. Secondly,
> even if it were true, it would only indicate how inefficient TV is in
> producing good programming today - not a measure of how a lack of good
> programming.
--- I guess you really don't watch all those other channels you
normally don't watch to see how much garbage there really is on them,
do you? I flip around a lot in often desperate and usually vain
attempts to watch something halfway decent and I just see way too much
stuff as I go through the 65 channels I get that is just plain useless
and putrid. The advantage of a 3-channel universe is that it served
as more of a filtering system, which really did prevent a lot of truly
bad stuff from ever making to air, the kind of stuff that you now see
without that filtering system. There was a finite amount of air time
and networks weren't going to waste it on egregiously bad programs.
That's not to say there weren't any losers. In any given season of
primetime back then, certainly before the late 70s, I could list maybe
a dozen shows or so I thought were pretty bad, but maybe a handful of
those that were truly awful, while maybe up two dozen were anywhere
from regularly watchable to great, and the rest fell into a great, big
middling area, in which I could either take them or leave them, but
mostly left them. Now, without the filtering system of a 3-channel
universe, I'm beseiged by a programming output that's comprised of 95%
dreck and/or unwatchable stuff and the remaining 5% more divided
between watchworthy shows and passable fare. There no longer is that
great, big middling area out there. That's quite a comedown when
you'd think that with more channels I should actually get more, ratio-
wise. And to add insult to injury, I actually got more out of the
tube when it was free than I do now when I have to pay for that damn
cable.
WQ
--- Just read my response to zaryzary about what's good and what's
bad, that should clear it up for you.
>
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Obveeus
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> The AFI list is clearly not the "Top 100" as measured solely by artistic
> worth. It's more like the "Top 100" of classic movies that most Americans
> remember fondly. And those aren't the same thing.
In your statement above you need to change out the words 'most Americans'
with 'most AFI voters'. We are talking about two entirely different groups
of people. 'Most Americans' have not even seen these 'ancient' movies.
WQ
--- Considering that 2/3 of Americans are over the age of 25, it's
quite conceivable that most Americans have seen a lot of these ancient
movies at least once, especially on one TV channel or another if not
on video or DVD. And besides, what have you got against ancient?
What's new today will already be ancient tomorrow. Everything gets
"ancient". Even you - you're ancient now compared to what you were a
year ago.
Obveeus
"WQ" <w...@email.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:14 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> In your statement above you need to change out the words 'most Americans'
>> with 'most AFI voters'. We are talking about two entirely different
>> groups
>> of people. 'Most Americans' have not even seen these 'ancient' movies.
>
> --- Considering that 2/3 of Americans are over the age of 25, it's
> quite conceivable that most Americans have seen a lot of these ancient
> movies at least once, especially on one TV channel or another if not
> on video or DVD.
You are deluding yourself if you think 'most Americans' are watching 50 year
old films.
The criteria for the AFI voters was spelled out and they most definitely are
not 'normal Americans'.
> And besides, what have you got against ancient?
The problem is that some people think ancient = better. You know, like
believing that 3 TV statuions is better than 300 TV station.
The AFI voters were specifically asked to count 'ancient' (historical) as
being of some inherently better value. Thus, a list of movies that does not
equate with quality or modern times.
David
Everyone has seen these movies. That's why they're "classics." On the
other hand, if they really wanted a "best" list and not just to have a
viewer-friendlyspecial it'd be littered with movies no one except
critcs and hardened movie buffs have ever heard of.
WQ
--- What are "modern times"? When did "modern times" begin? If you
were living in the 20s, those would've been "modern times" for you.
Charlie Chaplin made a film called "Modern Times" in the 30s. "Modern
times" was defined as "mod" in the 60s. Kids - at least pop groups -
wore what looked like space outfits and Star Trek hair in the "modern
times" of the 80s. You believe you're living in "modern times" today,
but 10 years from now, when it'll be "modern times" then, these
"modern times" now will be positively "ancient", according to your
definition again. There are no "modern times". Quality exists when
it exists, and true quality is timeless. That applies to everything,
from films to TV to books to music to everything. A 65-year-old film
like Casablanca or a 27-year-old film like Raging Bull or even an 8-
year-old film like The Sixth Sense are each vastly superior to 99% of
the junk coming out now in these "modern times".
David
>
>"WQ" <w...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 22, 7:14 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> In your statement above you need to change out the words 'most Americans'
>>> with 'most AFI voters'. We are talking about two entirely different
>>> groups
>>> of people. 'Most Americans' have not even seen these 'ancient' movies.
>>
>> --- Considering that 2/3 of Americans are over the age of 25, it's
>> quite conceivable that most Americans have seen a lot of these ancient
>> movies at least once, especially on one TV channel or another if not
>> on video or DVD.
>
>You are deluding yourself if you think 'most Americans' are watching 50 year
>old films.
They're watching these ones, certainly. It's hard to get through life
and not encounter the "classics" at some point, just like you're
unlikely to meet someone who's never seen "I Love Lucy" or "The
Honeymooners."
>The criteria for the AFI voters was spelled out and they most definitely are
>not 'normal Americans'.
Whatever the criteria was on paper, I think unofficially it ended up
being "movies people remember fondly," even if in some cases that
memory is deluded.
>> And besides, what have you got against ancient?
>
>The problem is that some people think ancient = better.
Yeah, I've seen a few people here who think everything on TCM is
spectacular and who can't separate "classic" from "old" in their
minds.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:14:13 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In your statement above you need to change out the words 'most Americans'
>>with 'most AFI voters'. We are talking about two entirely different
>>groups
>>of people. 'Most Americans' have not even seen these 'ancient' movies.
>
> Everyone has seen these movies. That's why they're "classics."
That is just silly. Lots of people channel surfing will immediately switch
to the next station if anything in black-and-white shows up on screen. For
awhile, the trend was even towards colorizing these movies in an attempt to
trick people into watching them. You cannot actually believe that 'everyone
has seen these movies'.
Obveeus
"WQ" <w...@email.com> wrote:
> Quality exists when
> it exists, and true quality is timeless. That applies to everything,
> from films to TV to books to music to everything.
That explains why some movie from the 1920's wasn't on the list at all 10
years ago, but is now one of the best 20 mivues ever made, right? Quality
is a constant? The only thing more deluded might be your previous claim
that during the last 10 years the majority of people somehow saw these 80
year old films and learned to appreciate them.
> A 65-year-old film
> like Casablanca or a 27-year-old film like Raging Bull or even an 8-
> year-old film like The Sixth Sense are each vastly superior to 99% of
> the junk coming out now in these "modern times".
Which, logically, means that the other 1% is better than the crusty old
stuff, yet the AFI list neglects that concept.
David
These exact movies, yes. It's the same as with classic tv. Most people
haven't seen 95% of shows from the 1950's but find a random group of
100 people and it's likely that 99 of them have seen "I Love Lucy"
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:22:41 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>You are deluding yourself if you think 'most Americans' are watching 50
>>year
>>old films.
>
> They're watching these ones, certainly. It's hard to get through life
> and not encounter the "classics" at some point,
I doubt very much that the majority of people in the US have seen 'Citizen
Cane', 'The Godfather', or 'Casablanca'; much less movies like 'City
Lights', 'The Searchers', and 'The General'. Those movies 'suddenly' became
Top20 movies for all-time because a small group of movie-history-dorks on
AFI's voting panel decided so, not because the majority of people recently
saw those old movies and decided they were good.
> just like you're unlikely to meet someone who's never seen "I Love Lucy"
> or "The
> Honeymooners."
Depends on the age of the people. Most of the old sitcoms have migrated
entirely to cable niche networks that 'the kiddies' never watch. I'd guess
that if you took the average person 25 and under, they would never in their
lives have seen an entire episode of either of those sitcoms.
> Yeah, I've seen a few people here who think everything on TCM is
> spectacular and who can't separate "classic" from "old" in their minds.
I wonder how many of the AFI voters were male vs. female. I have never met
a female that thought 'The Godfather' or 'Raging Bull' were 'great' movies.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:22:41 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>You are deluding yourself if you think 'most Americans' are watching 50
>>>year
>>>old films.
>>
>> They're watching these ones, certainly. It's hard to get through life
>> and not encounter the "classics" at some point,
>
>I doubt very much that the majority of people in the US have seen 'Citizen
>Cane', 'The Godfather', or 'Casablanca'; much less movies like 'City
>Lights', 'The Searchers', and 'The General'.
You can't go a week without "The Godfather" airing somewhere, and AMC
frequently airs "The Searchers." And between cable runs, frequent
mentions by critics, dvd releases that emphasize the "specialness" of
these movies and just general word of mouth people do see these
movies.
>Those movies 'suddenly' became
>Top20 movies for all-time because a small group of movie-history-dorks on
>AFI's voting panel decided so, not because the majority of people recently
>saw those old movies and decided they were good.
Huh, I'm seeing the opposite, that these specials are being made with
mainstream audiences in mind. Otherwise you'd see a lot of movies only
hardcore film buffs have seen or could appreciate, not things like
"Star Wars" and "The Wizard of Oz" in the top 10. I'm betting no
self-respecting film snob would include either of those.
The additions of old films can probably be chalked up to them getting
dvd releases.
>> just like you're unlikely to meet someone who's never seen "I Love Lucy"
>> or "The
>> Honeymooners."
>
>Depends on the age of the people. Most of the old sitcoms have migrated
>entirely to cable niche networks that 'the kiddies' never watch. I'd guess
>that if you took the average person 25 and under, they would never in their
>lives have seen an entire episode of either of those sitcoms.
I'm guessing they have. These things are embedded in pop culture and
have a ay of being seen.
>> Yeah, I've seen a few people here who think everything on TCM is
>> spectacular and who can't separate "classic" from "old" in their minds.
>
>I wonder how many of the AFI voters were male vs. female. I have never met
>a female that thought 'The Godfather' or 'Raging Bull' were 'great' movies.
This might be interesting to browse, though these are imdb users and
maybe aren't typical.
http://imdb.com/chart/male
http://imdb.com/chart/female
"The Godfather" is #1 with males, #6 with females. OTOH "The Godfather
Part II" is #35 with females, #3 with males.
WQ
> "WQ" <w...@email.com> wrote:
> > Quality exists when
> > it exists, and true quality is timeless. That applies to everything,
> > from films to TV to books to music to everything.
>
> That explains why some movie from the 1920's wasn't on the list at all 10
> years ago, but is now one of the best 20 mivues ever made, right? Quality
> is a constant? The only thing more deluded might be your previous claim
> that during the last 10 years the majority of people somehow saw these 80
> year old films and learned to appreciate them.
--- Quality is a constant. Whatever drops out of the list doesn't
necessarily mean it's lost its innate quality and whatever has been
added to the list when it wasn't there before doesn't mean it's
finally found its quality. The quality is constant, it's the people
who vote for the films that are not constant. It's not the same
people who voted for those films now as those who voted for them 10
years ago, that's why you get a difference, along with the fact that
10 years have passed and that also changes the make-up of the list.
But if most of the movies are still on the list now that were on it 10
years ago, what that means is that those movies have more of a
universal quality to them, one that transcends different generations
of people and voters. Your problem is that you're only thinking of
here and now, and that limited scope of yours only demonstrates a
fundamental lack of understanding the true nature of quality. Broaden
your scope and maybe you'll get it.
> > A 65-year-old film
> > like Casablanca or a 27-year-old film like Raging Bull or even an 8-
> > year-old film like The Sixth Sense are each vastly superior to 99% of
> > the junk coming out now in these "modern times".
>
> Which, logically, means that the other 1% is better than the crusty old
> stuff, yet the AFI list neglects that concept.
--- No, it just means that, with any luck, the 1% might be almost as
good as the crusty old stuff.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You can't go a week without "The Godfather" airing somewhere, and AMC
> frequently airs "The Searchers." And between cable runs, frequent
> mentions by critics, dvd releases that emphasize the "specialness" of
> these movies and just general word of mouth people do see these movies.
I very much doubt that the 'majority' of people have even watched a single
show on AMC. Go sit in a video store for a week and report back to me on
what opercentage of customers walk down the 'classics' aisle vs. the number
of customers that pass through the store. I'd guess that the majority of
people have never, ever rented a DVD/VCR tape of a black-and-white movie.
>>Those movies 'suddenly' became
>>Top20 movies for all-time because a small group of movie-history-dorks on
>>AFI's voting panel decided so, not because the majority of people recently
>>saw those old movies and decided they were good.
>
> Huh, I'm seeing the opposite, that these specials are being made with
> mainstream audiences in mind. Otherwise you'd see a lot of movies only
> hardcore film buffs have seen or could appreciate, not things like
> "Star Wars" and "The Wizard of Oz" in the top 10. I'm betting no
> self-respecting film snob would include either of those.
You have to keep in mind that the AFI voters were not allowed to pick 'the
best movies of all time'. They were allowed to pick the best movies of all
time among a small list of possible choices. No doubt, AFI wanted to keep
'weird stuff' off the end list entirely. Only 400 movies were eligible and
only 1,500 people (all from specific movie/history backgrounds) voted.
> The additions of old films can probably be chalked up to them getting
> dvd releases.
Well, sure, and the fact that we aren't talking about 'normal people'
voting. 'Normal people' did not rent The General, The Searchers, or City
Lights in the last 10 years.
>>Depends on the age of the people. Most of the old sitcoms have migrated
>>entirely to cable niche networks that 'the kiddies' never watch. I'd
>>guess
>>that if you took the average person 25 and under, they would never in
>>their
>>lives have seen an entire episode of either of those sitcoms.
>
> I'm guessing they have. These things are embedded in pop culture and
> have a ay of being seen.
An entire episode? Not some snippet on 'classic bloopers' or an awards show
tribute, but an entire episode? You really think that the average person
that spends half their day messing with a blackberry is sitting down in
front of the TV to watch old episodes of The Honeymooners?
> This might be interesting to browse, though these are imdb users and
> maybe aren't typical.
>
> http://imdb.com/chart/male
> http://imdb.com/chart/female
Definitely not typical movie viewers, atleast I would hope that typical
movie viewers wouldn't put 'V for Vendetta' on the Top50 of all-time. It is
interesting to note that IMDB voters are vastly weighted towards males. AFI
movies like 'Raging Bull' didn't make either list, bit the male list was big
on 'Fight Club' and weighted towards sci-fi more than the female list. No
movie from the 20's or 30's even made the male list and, best news of all,
both men and women were smart enough not to put ET in the Top50.
WQ
> "David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You can't go a week without "The Godfather" airing somewhere, and AMC
> > frequently airs "The Searchers." And between cable runs, frequent
> > mentions by critics, dvd releases that emphasize the "specialness" of
> > these movies and just general word of mouth people do see these movies.
>
> I very much doubt that the 'majority' of people have even watched a single
> show on AMC. Go sit in a video store for a week and report back to me on
> what opercentage of customers walk down the 'classics' aisle vs. the number
> of customers that pass through the store. I'd guess that the majority of
> people have never, ever rented a DVD/VCR tape of a black-and-white movie.
--- The flaw in your thinking is that you're equating mass awareness
with quality. That's seldom the case. Quality is in and of itself,
and it's independent of how many people are aware of it. The trick is
in being able to recognize the quality, which evidently, by your
arguments, you haven't mastered.
>
> >>Those movies 'suddenly' became
> >>Top20 movies for all-time because a small group of movie-history-dorks on
> >>AFI's voting panel decided so, not because the majority of people recently
> >>saw those old movies and decided they were good.
>
> > Huh, I'm seeing the opposite, that these specials are being made with
> > mainstream audiences in mind. Otherwise you'd see a lot of movies only
> > hardcore film buffs have seen or could appreciate, not things like
> > "Star Wars" and "The Wizard of Oz" in the top 10. I'm betting no
> > self-respecting film snob would include either of those.
>
> You have to keep in mind that the AFI voters were not allowed to pick 'the
> best movies of all time'. They were allowed to pick the best movies of all
> time among a small list of possible choices. No doubt, AFI wanted to keep
> 'weird stuff' off the end list entirely. Only 400 movies were eligible and
> only 1,500 people (all from specific movie/history backgrounds) voted.
--- Believe it or not, only 400 really good movies have been made in
the last 100 years. That's about 4 per year, which just about squares
with the Oscars when they always nominate 5 contenders. The rest is
generally crap or not quite up to the caliber of being considered
quality enough in the broadest sense. And who else would the AFI
allow to vote for the films but people who know the art? It certainly
wouldn't be left to a bunch of local yokels like you who can't see
things beyond the last or next second.
> > The additions of old films can probably be chalked up to them getting
> > dvd releases.
>
> Well, sure, and the fact that we aren't talking about 'normal people'
> voting. 'Normal people' did not rent The General, The Searchers, or City
> Lights in the last 10 years.
--- The list is not aimed at normal people. It's an elitist list drawn
up by people who know their craft better than you can even begin to
understand how a disposable camera works.
>
> >>Depends on the age of the people. Most of the old sitcoms have migrated
> >>entirely to cable niche networks that 'the kiddies' never watch. I'd
> >>guess
> >>that if you took the average person 25 and under, they would never in
> >>their
> >>lives have seen an entire episode of either of those sitcoms.
>
> > I'm guessing they have. These things are embedded in pop culture and
> > have a ay of being seen.
>
> An entire episode? Not some snippet on 'classic bloopers' or an awards show
> tribute, but an entire episode? You really think that the average person
> that spends half their day messing with a blackberry is sitting down in
> front of the TV to watch old episodes of The Honeymooners?
--- They have a way of being seen, if an average person chooses to see
them. Seems to me you rule yourself out of a lot of great films, TV,
music, books, etc. simply because they were all produced before 2006.
Since you're at it, why not work your way up to ruling yourself out of
everything produced before last week?
>
> > This might be interesting to browse, though these are imdb users and
> > maybe aren't typical.
>
> >http://imdb.com/chart/male
> >http://imdb.com/chart/female
>
> Definitely not typical movie viewers, atleast I would hope that typical
> movie viewers wouldn't put 'V for Vendetta' on the Top50 of all-time. It is
> interesting to note that IMDB voters are vastly weighted towards males. AFI
> movies like 'Raging Bull' didn't make either list, bit the male list was big
> on 'Fight Club' and weighted towards sci-fi more than the female list. No
> movie from the 20's or 30's even made the male list and, best news of all,
> both men and women were smart enough not to put ET in the Top50.
--- For the male list, at least half of that 50 are in the Top 100 AFI
list, meaning that if it were a Top 100 list also, about half would
again match up with the AFI list. For the female list, it's less, just
over a third. Some of the films on both their lists that were
excluded from AFI's would be worthy enough for a Top 100 placement
too, but since only a 100 could fit into the Top 100, and since
seasoned industry pros who are more learned about these things than
the common person get to vote for them, the 100 that showed up are the
100 that they felt merited a placement on the list. What would be
more interesting is to see the complete 400 film list AFI had to work
with and compare that to the imdb groups' picks. Chances are, 90% of
the imdb groups' choices would probably match up with AFI's 400. So,
then, your real point is?
Obveeus
"WQ" <w...@email.com> wrote:
> --- The flaw in your thinking is that you're equating mass awareness
> with quality. That's seldom the case. Quality is in and of itself,
> and it's independent of how many people are aware of it.
We are talking about a list of 'best movies'. If the vast majority of
people are not even aware of the movies, they have no business being on the
list. Somewhere in the back of your mind you must have the ability to
understand that the same criteria that decided 'who gets to vote' also
decided 'the kind of movies that they would vote for'. That decisionmaking
process severely biased the outcome of the vote.
> The trick is
> in being able to recognize the quality, which evidently, by your
> arguments, you haven't mastered.
Given the subject matter of most of your postings, you are not one to
address anybody on what constitutes 'quality'.
> --- The list is not aimed at normal people. It's an elitist list
Wow, you got something right.
> --- They have a way of being seen, if an average person chooses to see
> them. Seems to me you rule yourself out of a lot of great films, TV,
> music, books, etc. simply because they were all produced before 2006.
> Since you're at it, why not work your way up to ruling yourself out of
> everything produced before last week?
Clearly, you haven't grasped anything that has been discussed here, since I
have not given any indication about what crusty old sitcoms or crusty old
moviees I have personally seen. I have made no claim that movies from the
last 10 years should dominate the list. However, anyone that thinks movies
from the last 10 years should be excluded based upon their lack of
crustiness (your sort of logic) is delusional. Old crap is not superior
simply becasue it is old.
> --- For the male list, at least half of that 50 are in the Top 100 AFI
> list, meaning that if it were a Top 100 list also, about half would
> again match up with the AFI list. For the female list, it's less, just
> over a third. Some of the films on both their lists that were
> excluded from AFI's would be worthy enough for a Top 100 placement
> too, but since only a 100 could fit into the Top 100,
You grasp of 'logic' is amazing. What exactly do you think 'top 100' is if
you don't think that it has to do with 'the best 100'?
> What would be
> more interesting is to see the complete 400 film list AFI had to work
> with and compare that to the imdb groups' picks.
1 ACE IN THE HOLE
2 ADAM'S RIB
3 THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD
4 AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER
5 THE AFRICAN QUEEN
6 AIRPLANE!
7 ALIEN
8 ALL ABOUT EVE
9 ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT
10 ALL THAT JAZZ
11 ALLTHE KING'SMEN (1949)
12 ALLTHE PRESIDENT'S MEN
13 AMADEUS
14 AMERICAN BEAUTY
15 AMERICAN GRAFFITI
16 AN AMERICAN IN PARIS
17 ANNIE HALL
18 THE APARTMENT
19 APOCALYPSE NOW
20 APOLLO 13
21 AS GOOD AS IT GETS
22 ATLANTIC CITY
23 AUSTIN POWERS: INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY
24 THE AVIATOR (2004)
25 THE AWFUL TRUTH
26 BABE
27 BACK TO THE FUTURE
28 BADLANDS
29 BAMBI
30 THE BANDWAGON
31 THE BANK DICK
32 BEAU GESTE
33 A BEAUTIFUL MIND
34 BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (1991)
35 BEING JOHN MALKOVICH
36 BEN-HUR (1926)
37 BEN-HUR (1959)
38 THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES
39 BIG
40 THE BIG CHILL
41 THE BIG PARADE
42 THE BIG SLEEP
43 THE BIRDS
44 THE BIRTH OF A NATION
45 BLACKBOARD JUNGLE
46 BLADERUNNER
47 BLAZING SADDLES
48 BLUE VELVET
49 BONNIE AND CLYDE
50 BOOGIE NIGHTS
51 BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY
52 BOYZ N THE HOOD
53 BRAVEHEART
54 BRAZIL
55 BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S
56 THE BREAKFAST CLUB
57 BREAKING AWAY
58 THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI
59 BRINGING UP BABY
60 BROADCAST NEWS
61 BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
62 BROKEN BLOSSOMS
63 BULL DURHAM
64 BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID
65 CABARET
66 CABIN IN THE SKY
67 CAMILLE
68 CARRIE
69 CASABLANCA
70 CAT BALLOU
71 CAT PEOPLE (1942)
72 CHARIOTS OF FIRE
73 THE CHEAT
74 CHICAGO
75 CHINATOWN
76 A CHRISTMAS STORY
77 CINDERELLA (1950)
78 CITIZEN KANE
79 CITY LIGHTS
80 A CLOCKWORK ORANGE
81 CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND
82 THE COLOR PURPLE
83 COMING HOME
84 THE CONVERSATION
85 COOL HAND LUKE
86 CRASH
87 THE CROWD
88 DANCES WITH WOLVES
89 THE DAY THE EARTH STOODS TILL
90 DAYS OF HEAVEN
91 DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES
92 DEAD POETS SOCIETY
93 THE DEER HUNTER
94 THE DEFIANT ONES
95 DELIVERANCE
96 DESTRY RIDES AGAIN
97 THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK
98 DIE HARD
99 DIRTY HARRY
100 DO THE RIGHT THING
101 DOCTOR ZHIVAGO
102 DODSWORTH
103 DOG DAY AFTERNOON
104 DOUBLE INDEMNITY
105 DR. STRANGELOVE OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING
AND LOVE THE BOMB
106 DRIVING MISS DAISY
107 DUCK SOUP
108 E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL
109 EASY RIDER
110 THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
111 THE ENGLISH PATIENT
112 ERIN BROCKOVICH
113 ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
114 THE EXORCIST
115 A FACE IN THE CROWD
116 FANTASIA
117 FARGO
118 FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH
119 FATAL ATTRACTION
120 FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF
121 FIELD OF DREAMS
122 FIGHT CLUB
123 FINDING NEMO
124 FIVE EASY PIECES
125 FORCE OF EVIL
126 FORREST GUMP
127 42ND STREET
128 THE FOURHORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE
129 FRANKENSTEIN
130 FREAKS
131 THE FRENCH CONNECTION
132 THE FRESHMAN (1925)
133 FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
134 FUNNY GIRL
135 FURY
136 GANDHI
137 THE GENERAL (1927)
138 GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT
139 GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES
140 GHOSTBUSTERS
141 GIANT
142 GIGI
143 GILDA
144 GLADIATOR
145 GLORY
146 THE GODFATHER
147 THE GODFATHER PART II
148 GOING MY WAY
149 THE GOLD RUSH
150 GOLDFINGER
151 GONE WITH THE WIND
152 GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
153 GOOD WILL HUNTING
154 GOODBYE, MR.CHIPS (1939)
155 GOODFELLAS
156 THE GRADUATE
157 GRAND HOTEL
158 THE GRAPES OF WRATH
159 GREASE
160 THE GREAT DICTATOR
161 THE GREAT ESCAPE
162 GREED
163 GROUNDHOG DAY
164 GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER
165 GUNCRAZY
166 GUNGA DIN
167 HALLOWEEN
168 HAROLD AND MAUDE
169 HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN
170 THE HEIRESS
171 HIGH NOON
172 HIS GIRL FRIDAY
173 HOOSIERS
174 HOTEL RWANDA
175 THE HOURS
176 HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY
177 THE HUSTLER
178 I AM A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG
179 IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT
180 THE INSIDER
181 INTOLERANCE
182 INVASION OF THE BODYSNATCHERS (1956)
183 IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT
184 IT'S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD
185 IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE
186 JAWS
187 THE JAZZ SINGER
188 JERRY MAGUIRE
189 JEZEBEL
190 JURASSIC PARK
191 THE KID
192 THE KILLING FIELDS
193 THE KING AND I
194 KING KONG (1933)
195 THE KING OF COMEDY
196 KRAMER VS. KRAMER
197 L.A. CONFIDENTIAL
198 THE LADY EVE
199 THE LAST EMPEROR
200 THE LAST PICTURE SHOW
201 LAST TANGO IN PARIS
202 LAURA
203 LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
204 THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA
205 THE LION KING
206 LITTLE CAESAR
207 THE LITTLE FOXES
208 THE LONGEST DAY
209 THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
210 THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS
211 THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
212 LOST HORIZON
213 LOST IN TRANSLATION
214 THE LOST WEEKEND
215 LOVES TORY
216 M*A*S*H
217 THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS
218 THE MALTESE FALCON (1941)
219 A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS
220 THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING
221 THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (1962)
222 MANHATTAN
223 MARTY
224 MARY POPPINS
225 THE MATRIX
226 McCABE AND MRS.MILLER
227 MEAN STREETS
228 MEET ME IN ST.LOUIS
229 MEMENTO
230 MIDNIGHT COWBOY
231 MILDRED PIERCE
232 MILLION DOLLAR BABY
233 THE MIRACLE OF MORGAN'S CREEK
234 MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET
235 MODERN TIMES
236 MOONSTRUCK
237 MOULIN ROUGE!
238 MR.DEEDS GOES TO TOWN
239 MR.SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON
240 MRS.MINIVER
241 MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY (1935)
242 MY DARLING CLEMENTINE
243 MY FAIR LADY
244 MY MAN GODFREY
245 MYSTIC RIVER
246 NASHVILLE
247 NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ANIMAL HOUSE
248 NETWORK
249 A NIGHT AT THE OPERA
250 THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER
251 NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968)
252 NINOTCHKA
253 NORTH BY NORTHWEST
254 NOTORIOUS
255 NOW, VOYAGER
256 ON GOLDEN POND
257 ON THE WATERFRONT
258 ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
259 ORDINARY PEOPLE
260 OUT OF AFRICA
261 OUT OF THEP AST
262 THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES
263 THE OX-BOW INCIDENT
264 PATHS OF GLORY
265 PATTON
266 THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925)
267 PHILADELPHIA
268 THE PHILADELPHIA STORY
269 PILLOW TALK
270 PINOCCHIO
271 PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL
272 A PLACE IN THE SUN
273 PLANET OF THE APES (1968)
274 PLATOON
275 THE POOR LITTLE RICH GIRL
276 PORGY AND BESS
277 THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE
278 THE PRIDE OF THE YANKEES
279 THE PRODUCERS (1968)
280 PSYCHO
281 THE PUBLIC ENEMY
282 PULP FICTION
283 QUEEN CHRISTINA
284 THE QUIET MAN
285 RAGING BULL
286 RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
287 RAINMAN
288 A RAISIN IN THE SUN
289 RAY
290 REAR WINDOW
291 REBECCA
292 REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE
293 RED RIVER
294 REDS
295 REQUIEM FOR A DREAM
296 RETURN OF THE SECAUCUS 7
297 THE RIGHT STUFF
298 RISKY BUSINESS
299 ROAD TO MOROCCO
300 ROCKY
301 THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW
302 ROMAN HOLIDAY
303 ROSEMARY'S BABY
304 RUSHMORE
305 SAFETY LAST
306 SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER
307 SAVING PRIVATE RYAN
308 SCARFACE (1932)
309 THE SCARLET EMPRESS
310 SCHINDLER'S LIST
311 THE SEARCHERS
312 SENSE AND SENSIBILITY (1995)
313 SERGEANT YORK
314 SEX, LIES, AND VIDEOTAPE
315 SHADOW OF A DOUBT
316 SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE
317 SHANE
318 THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
319 SHE DONE HIM WRONG
320 SHERLOCK, JR.
321 THE SHINING
322 SHREK
323 SIDEWAYS
324 THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
325 SINGIN' IN THE RAIN
326 THE SIXTH SENSE
327 SLEEPER
328 SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE
329 SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS
330 SOME LIKE IT HOT
331 SONS OF THE DESERT
332 SOPHIE'S CHOICE
333 THE SOUND OF MUSIC
334 SOUNDER
335 SPARTACUS
336 SPIDER-MAN 2
337 SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS
338 STAGECOACH
339 STALAG 17
340 STAND BY ME
341 A STAR IS BORN
342 STAR WARS
343 THE STING
344 STORMY WEATHER
345 STRANGER THAN PARADISE
346 STRANGERS ON A TRAIN
347 A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE
348 SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS
349 SUNRISE
350 SUNSET BLVD.
351 THE SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS
352 SWING TIME
353 TAXI DRIVER
354 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
355 TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENTDAY
356 TERMS OF ENDEARMENT
357 THELMA & LOUISE
358 THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY
359 THE THIEF OF BAGDAD
360 THE THIN MAN
361 THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951)
362 THE THIRD MAN
363 THIS IS SPINAL TAP
364 THREE KINGS
365 TITANIC (1997)
366 TO BE OR NOT TO BE (1942)
367 TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT
368 TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
369 TOOTSIE
370 TOP HAT
371 TOUCH O FEVIL
372 TOY STORY
373 TRAFFIC
374 THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE
375 TROUBLE IN PARADISE
376 12 ANGRY MEN
377 TWELVE O'CLOCK HIGH
378 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY
379 UNFORGIVEN
380 THE USUAL SUSPECTS
381 VERTIGO
382 THE WAY WE WERE
383 WEST SIDE STORY
384 WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?
385 WHEN HARRY MET SALLY.
386 WHITE HEAT
387 WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?
388 THE WILD BUNCH
389 WINCHESTER '73
390 THE WIND
391 WINGS
392 WITNESS
393 THE WIZARD OF OZ
394 WOMAN OF THE YEAR
395 A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE
396 WUTHERING HEIGHTS (1939)
397 YANKEE DOODLE DANDY
398 YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU
399 YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN
400 YOUNG MR.LINCOLN
> Chances are, 90% of
> the imdb groups' choices would probably match up with AFI's 400. So,
> then, your real point is?
If your claim is that 90 of the movies from the IMDB list will appear on the
Top400 of the AFI list, what is your point?
zaryza...@yahoo.com
> --- While that may be true, I'm not sure one could find much more than
> the 14 films [I thought it was 16, but it's only 14] of the last 25
> years that appeared on the list.
I don't know whether there will be more films from the last 25 years
added to the list. My point wasn't that I was clairovoyant and could
say which films would be considered great in coming decades, but that
what people perceive to be great changes over time. "Citizen Kane"
for instance wasn't ranked that high when Empire magazine did a list
of the best films ever in 1952, and yet today it shows up as the #1
film of all time again and again.
zaryza...@yahoo.com
> No, it's more than that. This AFI list clearly has a popularity element
> to it. These are the movies that the *public* remembers fondly as being
> great. It leaves out "hidden gems"--movies that have stood the test of
> time to receive acclaim from the artistic world, but which are not the
> ones that most average Americans are likely to have watched.
Well, right. The list is pretty much made up of mainstream movies.
You're on a fool's errand if you think you can come up with a list of
objectively "great" film, so they (not unreasonably) decided to pick
movies that were popular among the general population as opposed to
movies that fill an artistic niche.
> In sci-fi movies, a favorite niche of mine, I know several "hidden gems"
> that were terrific, but were never popular in America and are unlikely
> to ever be.
Ok, ok, I'll bite. What sci-fi films do you like that most people
don't knwo about?
Steven L.
I disagree.
You don't think most Americans have seen "King Kong" and "It's A
Wonderful Life"?
Of course they have.
These are the movies that are rerun on TV during the holidays. Or the
ones that families rent to view on Christmas Day after they unwrap the
presents. "It's a Wonderful Life" is broadcast every Christmas holiday
since I was a kid. Check your local listings next Christmas and see.
And they're also the movies that students learn about in *introductory*
film study courses at school.
Steven L.
Not every night, but they've watched classic movies at least once.
Guaranteed. How do I know? Because their PARENTS made them watch those
movies as kids, as part of holiday family viewing. (Except for R-rated
movies and we just didn't have those before 1970.)
Wanna take an online poll and find out?
Let's put it to the test:
POLL FOR YOUNG VIEWERS ONLY (i.e. under age of 35): Have you ever
watched any of the following:
1. "King Kong," 1933 version
2. "The Wizard of Oz"
3. "Citizen Kane"
4. "The Godfather"
5. "It's a Wonderful Life"
curmudgeon
zaryza...@yahoo.com
> --- It doesn't matter what you or anyone likes, it's irrelevant. It's
> all about how much time you're spending watching stuff you like now
> compared to a 3-channel universe and what that ratio amounts to.
I couldn't disagree more. Just because a person is watching a show
doesn't mean that he or she thinks it's a great, entertaining show.
For instance, before I had cable TV, if I happened to be home during a
weekday I'd probably end up watching some talk shows shows like
Donahue. Is that because I'm a Donahue fan? No, it's because that's
all that was on, and because I'm a lazy POS, I'd rather watch TV that
I don't particularly like than do something productive like read a
book or do something worthwhile around the house. Today if I happen
to be at home, I'm still going to be watching TV, but chances are if
I'm home in the middle of the day, I'm much, much more likely to find
something that I like with a bunch of channels than when I had 3.
> It's in being numerical
> about it that you can define the quality of the viewing for yourself
> without having to agree with anyone else about what the real
> definition of quality is, and I can pretty well guarantee you that
> numerically, in ratio terms, everyone is watching much less TV now
> than back then.
You keep repeating the numerical argument as if I'm not getting it.
Let me put it plainly: Yes, I understand that if people watched 20
hours a week of TV which represented, say, 10% of the total output
during a week, and now they only watch 20 hours, it only represents
0.1% (or some tiny fraction). My point is that it's a gross
simplification to assume that a person likes a show equally no matter
what's on, and therefore this simple calculation isn't enough to
measure quality objectively.
> --- I guess you really don't watch all those other channels you
> normally don't watch to see how much garbage there really is on them,
> do you?
I regret to say that I watch a lot of TV, on many different channels.
I'd like to say that I spend my time doing something more productive,
but I really don't.
> I flip around a lot in often desperate and usually vain
> attempts to watch something halfway decent and I just see way too much
> stuff as I go through the 65 channels I get that is just plain useless
> and putrid.
In your opinion they're useless and putrid. If someone told me I had
to watch a few hours of NASCAR, I'd seriously consider gouging my eyes
out. But I know people who loooove NASCAR, and to them it's great
TV.
> The advantage of a 3-channel universe is that it served
> as more of a filtering system, which really did prevent a lot of truly
> bad stuff from ever making to air, the kind of stuff that you now see
> without that filtering system.
Yes, but if you happen to like an esoteric subject, you wouldn't see
it because it got filtered out. I know someone, for instance, who
loves to watch cooking shows. That type of programming would be very
limited in a 3-channel universe. It would be filtered out because it's
"bad," meaning it wouldn't get high ratings. But with a bunch of
channels you can see it.
> Now, without the filtering system of a 3-channel
> universe, I'm beseiged by a programming output that's comprised of 95%
> dreck and/or unwatchable stuff and the remaining 5% more divided
> between watchworthy shows and passable fare. There no longer is that
> great, big middling area out there. That's quite a comedown when
> you'd think that with more channels I should actually get more, ratio-
> wise.
No, to use your argument, no matter how you figure it you'd probably
get LESS ratio-wise with 65 channels. But as I said, that shouldn't
matter, because the relevant issue is whether or not you find
something worth watching when you sit down to watch, not whether
there's junk on the set that you don't happen to watch.
Let me put it another way. Your argument is a little like someone
saying, "In the 3-channel universe, TV was a lot worse. I mean, for as
many as 6 hours a day they didn't have anything but snow on!" The
point is how much you enjoy what you watch, not how much you would
theoretically dislike programming that you don't watch anyway.
> And to add insult to injury, I actually got more out of the
> tube when it was free than I do now when I have to pay for that damn
> cable.
Yeah, well, I can't argue with you there. There's plenty of stuff that
is more expensive today than it once was.
Steven L.
"Everyone" hasn't seen "every" movie.
But I wager each American has seen at least one, or studied it in school
when they took Introductory Film Study 101 in school. ("Birth of a
Nation" falls into the latter category.)
Heck, when I went to grammar school, my social studies teacher always
used to remind us kids when a classic movie was on TV so we could watch
it. (We had no VCR yet so we had to arrange our schedule around the
broadcast.) Movies he recommended to us included "Citizen Kane,"
"Zulu," "55 Days at Peking," etc. And the next day my teacher would ask
us if we had seen it and what we thought of it.
Steve Newport
From: w...@email.com (WQ)
74. The Silence of the Lambs - 1991
76. Forrest Gump - 1994
83. Titanic - 1997
94. Pulp Fiction - 1994
-----------------------------------
Dreadful, dreadful films.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve Newport
elect...@ebuyhk.com (Wong)
Citizen Kane has got to be one of the most BORING films of all times
-------------------------------------
No.
Steve Newport
From: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net (Steven L.) Yes, there was Edward
R. Murrow's "See it Now." But there was also "Kukla, Fran and Ollie"
------------------------------------
That was good, too.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Anim8rFSK
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
Ah, yes, fine holiday family viewing there.
Um -- exactly what holidays did your family celebrate, anyway??
> 5. "It's a Wonderful Life"
--
"When you see Alec Baldwin, you see the true ugliness of human nature."
-- Kim Jong II
Steve Newport
From: Obv...@aol.com (Obveeus)
were 'great' movies.
Many men, including myself, would agree with them.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve Newport
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve Newport
From: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net (Steven L.) Movies he recommended
to us included "Zulu," "55 Days at Peking,"
-----------------------------------
Ouch!
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
David
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>Not every night, but they've watched classic movies at least once.
>Guaranteed. How do I know? Because their PARENTS made them watch those
>movies as kids, as part of holiday family viewing. (Except for R-rated
>movies and we just didn't have those before 1970.)
>
>Wanna take an online poll and find out?
>
>Let's put it to the test:
>
>POLL FOR YOUNG VIEWERS ONLY (i.e. under age of 35): Have you ever
>watched any of the following:
>
>1. "King Kong," 1933 version
>2. "The Wizard of Oz"
>3. "Citizen Kane"
>4. "The Godfather"
>5. "It's a Wonderful Life"
I haven't seen "Citizen Kane." I've had opportunities but I felt like
I already knew the whole plot. It's amazing how these pop culture
things are like preprogrammed at birth. When "Tiny Toon Adventures"
parodied it I was 10 but knew that it was a "Citizen Kane" parody.
Obveeus
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> Obveeus wrote:
>> with 'most AFI voters'. We are talking about two entirely different
>> groups of people. 'Most Americans' have not even seen these 'ancient'
>> movies.
>
> I disagree.
>
> You don't think most Americans have seen "King Kong" and "It's A Wonderful
> Life"?
> Of course they have.
>
> These are the movies that are rerun on TV during the holidays. Or the
> ones that families rent to view on Christmas Day after they unwrap the
> presents. "It's a Wonderful Life" is broadcast every Christmas holiday
> since I was a kid. Check your local listings next Christmas and see.
So, your ability to disagree about a list of movies is limited to one movie
that gets replayed over and over around Christmas? I'll be nice and pretend
that you didn't also say that people watch King Kong on the holidays each
year. ;-)
> And they're also the movies that students learn about in *introductory*
> film study courses at school.
Ah, see, that is more to the point. I'll just respond by saying that
'normal people' do not take film study courses, but that most (if not all)
of the AFI voters did.
Obveeus
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> 1. "King Kong," 1933 version
> 2. "The Wizard of Oz"
> 3. "Citizen Kane"
> 4. "The Godfather"
> 5. "It's a Wonderful Life"
Beyond the silly claim that people sit around watching King Kong on
Christmas Day, why did you change the films that were originally examples
under this discussion as films people haven't bee watching? Poll people on
'The General', 'City Lights', and 'The Searchers'.
Steve Newport
From: Obv...@aol.com (Obveeus)
Another good reason to hate them.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
WQ
--- The point is that if the IMDB people picked 9 out of 10 of their
choices that also ended up on the AFI list of 400, a list which is
largely comprised of crusty old stuff, then the regular folk of IMDB
[not just industry folk] are pretty well in tune with what the AFI
believes are the better movies of all time, actually having seen those
movies [unlike you]. The IMDB people are being representative of the
general normal population, one that you claim have never seen these
movies.
Having seen practically all these films myself, it's an interesting
list to go through for some of what the Top 100 left out as well as
for some surprises of what was actually included in the Bottom 300.
Still, if it had been my own Top 100 list, it would be somewhat
different from AFI's Top 100, but one that would draw heavily from the
400 list and very little from outside of it.
WQ
--- I never said anything about liking shows equally. I broke it down
to three grades: great, middling, bad. Great could include shows you
would not miss under any circumstances as well as shows you'd watch
most weeks if not every week, and you wouldn't necessarily like them
exactly equally, either. Middling could include shows viewed
occasionally or while doing something else at the same time and not
really following them with your full attention. And bad, well, bad is
just plain bad, being shows you'd never watch or would watch once or
twice just to remind yourself how bad they really are. There are few
shows one could like or hate equally; shows are liked or hated for
different reasons. That's why using the numeric approach is accurate
enough in trying to determine differences between eras or decades. It
eliminates any biases or favoritism and reduces everything strictly to
watched or not watched or something in between, and it's something
that works for everyone individually since no one has to agree on what
makes for a good or bad show.
>
> > --- I guess you really don't watch all those other channels you
> > normally don't watch to see how much garbage there really is on them,
> > do you?
>
> I regret to say that I watch a lot of TV, on many different channels.
> I'd like to say that I spend my time doing something more productive,
> but I really don't.
>
> > I flip around a lot in often desperate and usually vain
> > attempts to watch something halfway decent and I just see way too much
> > stuff as I go through the 65 channels I get that is just plain useless
> > and putrid.
>
> In your opinion they're useless and putrid. If someone told me I had
> to watch a few hours of NASCAR, I'd seriously consider gouging my eyes
> out. But I know people who loooove NASCAR, and to them it's great
> TV.
--- Cars going around in circles. If that's not useless, I don't know
what it is. And what does it really say about people who like to
watch something go around in circles?
>
> > The advantage of a 3-channel universe is that it served
> > as more of a filtering system, which really did prevent a lot of truly
> > bad stuff from ever making to air, the kind of stuff that you now see
> > without that filtering system.
>
> Yes, but if you happen to like an esoteric subject, you wouldn't see
> it because it got filtered out. I know someone, for instance, who
> loves to watch cooking shows. That type of programming would be very
> limited in a 3-channel universe. It would be filtered out because it's
> "bad," meaning it wouldn't get high ratings. But with a bunch of
> channels you can see it.
--- I saw plenty of esoteric subjects on TV in a 3-channel universe,
on weekend afternoons, especially on Sunday, and also on PBS [the 4th
channel]. I'm really not getting more now than I did in the 60s or 70s
when it comes to esoteric shows, except for all those useless and
putrid reality and makeover shows.
>
> > Now, without the filtering system of a 3-channel
> > universe, I'm beseiged by a programming output that's comprised of 95%
> > dreck and/or unwatchable stuff and the remaining 5% more divided
> > between watchworthy shows and passable fare. There no longer is that
> > great, big middling area out there. That's quite a comedown when
> > you'd think that with more channels I should actually get more, ratio-
> > wise.
>
> No, to use your argument, no matter how you figure it you'd probably
> get LESS ratio-wise with 65 channels. But as I said, that shouldn't
> matter, because the relevant issue is whether or not you find
> something worth watching when you sit down to watch, not whether
> there's junk on the set that you don't happen to watch.
>
> Let me put it another way. Your argument is a little like someone
> saying, "In the 3-channel universe, TV was a lot worse. I mean, for as
> many as 6 hours a day they didn't have anything but snow on!" The
> point is how much you enjoy what you watch, not how much you would
> theoretically dislike programming that you don't watch anyway.
--- The point is, that this past season I generally watched only about
2-3 hours a week of shows that I enjoyed in a 65-channel universe
compared to about 5 times as many hours I enjoyed watching 30 years
ago in a 3-channel universe. That's the point. Less is more.
>
> > And to add insult to injury, I actually got more out of the
> > tube when it was free than I do now when I have to pay for that damn
> > cable.
>
> Yeah, well, I can't argue with you there. There's plenty of stuff that
> is more expensive today than it once was.
--- Yeah, kind of takes all the fun out of living, doesn't it?
Stan Brown
<britica...@bresnan.net>:
> I just wonder how many if any are out on *DVD*?
"if any"?????
Right -- 100 top movies of all time, and you wonder if *any* of them
are on DVD.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"You may be the Universe's butt puppet, but I'm its right-
hand fist of fate." -- /Wonderfalls/
jdunlop
How about just ask how many movies on the list have R.A.T posters
watched (completely.) I just ran through the list and counted 37 of
the 100. That's less than one a year for me (ie, I'm over 37 :-) I
bet I'm probably above the mean.
AFI requires registration. Here's a link to the full list...
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_6190057?nclick_check=1
WQ
> On Jun 22, 9:33 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> > > 1. "King Kong," 1933 version
> > > 2. "The Wizard of Oz"
> > > 3. "Citizen Kane"
> > > 4. "The Godfather"
> > > 5. "It's a Wonderful Life"
>
> > Beyond the silly claim that people sit around watching King Kong on
> > Christmas Day, why did you change the films that were originally examples
> > under this discussion as films people haven't bee watching? Poll people on
> > 'The General', 'City Lights', and 'The Searchers'.
>
> How about just ask how many movies on the list have R.A.T posters
> watched (completely.) I just ran through the list and counted 37 of
> the 100. That's less than one a year for me (ie, I'm over 37 :-) I
> bet I'm probably above the mean.
--- I saw 91 one of them. The nine I still haven't seen, or have seen
too little of, just snippets, are: E.T. [which doesn't belong on the
list from my p.o.v.]. Singing in the Rain, All About Eve, The General,
Intolerance, Nashville, Sunrise, Sophie's Choice and Yankee Doodle
Dandy.
Victor Velazquez
news:1182610116.7...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 23, 10:34 am, jdunlop <jdun...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 9:33 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>> > > 1. "King Kong," 1933 version
>> > > 2. "The Wizard of Oz"
>> > > 3. "Citizen Kane"
>> > > 4. "The Godfather"
>> > > 5. "It's a Wonderful Life"
>>
>> > Beyond the silly claim that people sit around watching King Kong on
>> > Christmas Day, why did you change the films that were originally
>> > examples
>> > under this discussion as films people haven't bee watching? Poll
>> > people on
>> > 'The General', 'City Lights', and 'The Searchers'.
>>
>> How about just ask how many movies on the list have R.A.T posters
>> watched (completely.) I just ran through the list and counted 37 of
>> the 100. That's less than one a year for me (ie, I'm over 37 :-) I
>> bet I'm probably above the mean.
>
> --- I saw 91 one of them. The nine I still haven't seen, or have seen
> too little of, just snippets, are: E.T. [which doesn't belong on the
> list from my p.o.v.].
But...you haven't seen it? So how do you know it doesn't belong on the
list? BTW, I'm not saying it does belong on the list, just wondering what
criteria it fails to meet for you without having been watched. You don't
like movies with kids, maybe?
WQ
--- The snippets I've seen of it indicate to me that it's one of those
silly Spielberg films about cute suburban kids and cuter space aliens
in some sort of cartoonish Saturday morning TV plot made to be
digestable for mass human consumption and not something that's a
cinematic example of high art or even an attempt at it. It all just
looks too synthetic to be real.
Steve Newport
From: w...@email.com (WQ)
I still haven't seen, or have seen too little of Singin' in the Rain,
All About Eve, Nashville, and Yankee Doodle Dandy.
-----------------------------------------
How did you miss those?
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Victor Velazquez
Well, I certainly wouldn't argue with most of your assessment except to say
that Spielberg is clearly aiming at something more than what he ended up
with, IMHO (and that can be interesting to watch in and of itself).
WQ
> From: w...@email.com (WQ)
> I still haven't seen, or have seen too little of Singin' in the Rain,
> All About Eve, Nashville, and Yankee Doodle Dandy.
> -----------------------------------------
> How did you miss those?
--- Mostly deliberately. The most I got out of them were odd snippets
here and there while they were on the tube and from that alone nothing
about them really seemed to grab hold of me to make me want to really
watch them from start to finish whenever another chance came around.
>
> O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~Ohttp://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
> O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Anim8rFSK
"Victor Velazquez" <vict...@notnow.com> wrote:
I find ET to be tedious, difficult to sit through, and poorly crafted.
A friend of mine says you can't truly appreciate it unless you have a
squirming kid on your lap. Well, maybe it belongs on a list of "Top 100
Films You Can't Possibly Enjoy Without A Squirming Kid On Your Lap" but
it doesn't belong on any other top 100 list. Well, okay, maybe "Top 100
Films With Yet Another Crap Carlo Rambaldi Creature In Them"
Mark Nobles
This is WQ's MO. Every fall he publishes his judgment of the new shows
before he ever sees any of them. And, surprise surprise, ALL of them
always stink. Why should he waste time watching shows he knows he isn't
going to like?
David Johnston
wrote:
>However, to me, that does not diminish your point. Some truly great movies
>have been produced in the past ten years and they should not be ignored.
His real point is that modern things are crap.
David Johnston
>On Jun 21, 10:51 am, "Victor Velazquez" <victhr...@notnow.com> wrote:
>> "WQ" <w...@email.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1182436211.3...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > --- On the contrary, the more you have anything, the more that junk
>> > will overwhelm the greatness.
>>
>> I would think that the more of something you have, the more of the good
>> stuff you'd keep around, so while we continually produce the same ratio of
>> good to crap, we're also building up a surplus of mostly good.
>
>--- You'll have to prove that math to me. If you look at TV alone,
>can you honestly say that there's the same ration of good to bad in a
>300-channel universe as there was in a 3-channel one? If you're only
>watching 20 hours a week that you find worth watching now and you
>would've been watching the same number of hours per week in the 3-
>channel days, then that disproves what you claim.
Or it establishes that he isn't settling as much. For example, last
night I watched an Inu-Yasha feature film and The Last Detective,
shows I'd never would have had the chance to see in a 3 channel
universe (because they're both foreign) and I certainly would have
watched them in preference to many of the things I settled for in the
old days if I'd had the chance then. In fact I chose them over a
Captain Blood movie and The Closer, which are exactly the kind of
things I would have watched in 70s by preference, not because I like
them any less now, but because I have more options now. Tonight I
plan to watch the BBC news, Painkiller Jane, Hamish Macbeth and the
History of English, and of those shows, the only one that I could
possibly have seen in a three channel universe in the evening is
Painkiller Jane.
David Johnston
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>Obveeus wrote:
>> "Dowell" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> I am glad that "Blade Runner" and "The Shawshank Redemption" made the
>>> list,
>>> even though "Blade Runner," to me, was ranked far too low.
>>
>> If Bladerunner was on the list, then the list is automatically invalid.
>> Bladerunner has as much right to be listed as one of the Top100 movies of
>> all time as Cherry 2000 does.
>
>The AFI list is clearly not the "Top 100" as measured solely by artistic
>worth. It's more like the "Top 100" of classic movies that most
>Americans remember fondly. And those aren't the same thing.
>
>An obscure movie made by an independent filmmaker, for example, isn't
>going to end up on any such list no matter how excellent it was.
"obscure" automatically eliminates it from consideration since one of
the criteria you're supposed to judge films by when voting is being
influential on culture and other movies.
>
>Perhaps AFI should also have a separate list, "AFI Top 100 Hidden Gems,"
> that lists superior movies that are either forgotten or underrated?
That's quite a good idea.
David Johnston
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:14:13 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>> The AFI list is clearly not the "Top 100" as measured solely by artistic
>>> worth. It's more like the "Top 100" of classic movies that most Americans
>>> remember fondly. And those aren't the same thing.
>>
>>In your statement above you need to change out the words 'most Americans'
>>with 'most AFI voters'. We are talking about two entirely different groups
>>of people. 'Most Americans' have not even seen these 'ancient' movies.
>
>Everyone has seen these movies. That's why they're "classics." On the
>other hand, if they really wanted a "best" list and not just to have a
>viewer-friendlyspecial it'd be littered with movies no one except
>critcs and hardened movie buffs have ever heard of.
Because as we all know, if something is good, really, really good,
then it must be unenjoyable and obscure.
David
wrote:
That's not what I said. But there's a difference between a populist
"best of" list and one made by film buffs, much like there's a
difference between the Academy Awards and the People's Choice Awards.
Unique
MPG.20e6d3152...@news.individual.net,
> Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:40:52 -0600 from curmudgeon
> <britica...@bresnan.net>:
>> I just wonder how many if any are out on *DVD*?
>
> "if any"?????
>
> Right -- 100 top movies of all time, and you wonder if *any* of them
> are on DVD.
He doesn't call himself "curmudgeon" for nothing. :-)
--
DVDs for sale: http://unique-dvd.com
165 Banned Cartoons, The Unknown War, Centennial Miniseries,
Holocaust, Pearl, Amerika, Space, George Washington, Anzacs,
Marco Polo, Captains and the Kings, Peter the Great, Noble House,
and more...
Steve Newport
w...@email.com (WQ)
and there while they were on the tube and from that alone nothing about
them really seemed to grab hold of me to make me want to really watch
them from start to finish whenever another chance came around.
Wow. While I don't think, as many do, that SITR is *the* greatest movie
musical, I think AAE is easily one of the greatest films of all time.
Top of the list.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve Newport
diml...@yahoo.com (David)
And often a difference between the Academy/Globes and the various film
critics' awards.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve Newport
vict...@notnow.com (Victor Velazquez)
Isn't that almost always the case?
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve Newport
da...@block.net (David Johnston)
If something is good, really, really good, then it must be unenjoyable
and obscure. ----------------------------------------
It can be enjoyable *and *relatively obscure. TCM proves that often.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve Newport
ANIM...@cox.net (Anim8rFSK)
ET: A friend of mine says you can't truly appreciate it unless you have
a squirming kid on your lap.
And she's over 18.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve Newport
From: diml...@yahoo.com (David)
critcs and hardened movie buffs have ever heard of.
True.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Obveeus
"Steve Newport" <Newpor...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7179-468...@storefull-3153.bay.webtv.net...
>
> From: diml...@yahoo.com (David)
> if they really wanted a "best" list and not just to have a
> viewer-friendly special it'd be littered with movies no one except
> critcs and hardened movie buffs have ever heard of.
> ------------------------------------
> True.
Why has Hollywood worked so hard to keep the public from seeing any of the
best 100 films ever made?
WQ
> "Steve Newport" <NewportsRe...@webtv.net> wrote in message
--- Just out of morbid curiosity, they are?
Obveeus
According to David and Steve above, the best movies ever made have not been
seen by anyone except a chosen few critics and movie buffs.
WQ
--- That could be true. Just check the lists on the Metacritic site,
www.metacritic.com.
David
Well if it wasn't clear, I was exaggerating. And I was responding to
your point that this was a "film geek" list. There's clearly a
difference between a list composed by film experts and one made for a
mainstream-friendly special, just like there's a difference between
what an average person would put on 2007's top 10 list and what Roger
Ebert would, and AFI's list is mostly the latter, though a few obscure
choices made it.
Note that I'm not saying an average person's top 10 list is any less
valid than Ebert's would be. I myself would likely go see Spiderman
rather than whatever is big with critics right now. But AFI's list is
made up of the Spidermen of the last 100 years.
(Of course occasionally a popcorn movie also happens to be the
critics' pick, such as "Forrest Gump" and "Titanic" and also some
movies that had unpresumptious releases become classics over time.
OTOH, movies that critics considered the year's best, like "Crash,"
"Brokeback Mountain," "Capote," will likely become obscure, which is
what I meant by movies only hardened movie buffs will remember.)
Steve Newport
diml...@yahoo.com (David)
one made for a mainstream-friendly special, just like there's a
difference between what an average person would put on 2007's top 10
also happens to be the critics' pick, such as "Forrest Gump" and
--------------------------------------------
The critics were delusional those years. And give me CAPOTE over
SPIDERMAN.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Obveeus
I know you were exaggerating, but your point was still noted and understood.
I just find it funny that we are to believe that these films are 'great'
when they are of no interest to 99+% of potential viewers. That really is
the way 'film buffs' think and I think it demonstrates why their opinion
isn't worth much.
> And I was responding to
> your point that this was a "film geek" list. There's clearly a
> difference between a list composed by film experts and one made for a
> mainstream-friendly special, just like there's a difference between
> what an average person would put on 2007's top 10 list and what Roger
> Ebert would, and AFI's list is mostly the latter, though a few obscure
> choices made it.
The real farce is exposed when the list from 10 years ago is compared with
the current list. No intelligent person could actively claim that the
changes (drastic jumps and falls) of a few of the films on that list are
'logical' based upon any long term appreciation / understanding / whatever
of the work. I know you weren't the one claiming that these 60+ ranking
moves were logical, but the fact that they occur is reason enough for
everyone to understand that the list is not realy a list of the 'best 100',
but at best just a list of 'mostly good agreed upon movies'.
> Note that I'm not saying an average person's top 10 list is any less
> valid than Ebert's would be. I myself would likely go see Spiderman
> rather than whatever is big with critics right now. But AFI's list is
> made up of the Spidermen of the last 100 years.
Spiderman was a bad film. In fact, all three of them were bad, but the
latest is the worst. The 'plot' was written by someone that clearly didn't
care if anything even made sense. Spiderman 3 represents everything that
makes people say that 'culture' and 'quality' are two different things. I
would hope that people weren't saying that about too many of the 'AFI Top
100' at the time they were originally released.
I agree with you that the AFI list is based, in part, upon popular culture
rather than just 'obsessive critcs personal favorites'. I suppose part of
that has to do with AFI being smart enough to limit what films were allowed
to be included and part of that is simply that the 'film buffs' probably
aren't going to agree on which 'cult' films are 'best' whereas a majority of
them can agree on which popular films are 'pretty good'. The end result is
that the AFI voters were forced to at least limit their choices to movies
with some 'popular credibility'. unfortunately, it still gave them far too
much leway to 'honor' too many old films over newer ones.
Certain things about this type of list really bother me.
Example: I can't help but think that the voters look at certain actors and
think 'which one of this guy's films is best, that is the one I will put on
the list'. As an example, take Al Pachino. If you actually made the entire
population of the US sit down and watch 'The Godfather', 'Dog Day
Afternoon', 'Scarface', and 'The Devils Advocate' and then describe how the
films are similar and different (pretend they have no knowledge of box
office numbers), what kind of statements do you think people would give? I
doubt you would find many people that would say 'The Godfather has got to be
one of the very best movies ever made, but Dog Day Afternoon certainly isn't
in the Top100'. Instead, one makes it onto AFI's list and one doesn't based
upon some combination of box office numbers and apriori knowledge of what
other 'critics' said before. Want proof? Consider this: 'The oldest film
to be dropped was D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation (1915), from #44.
Perhaps ironically, the oldest film to be added to the new list was
Griffith's Intolerance (1916), ranked at #49. '
Example: one of the things that the list is supposed to represent is how
movies 'changed the film industry'. Yet, for whatever reason, the 'critics'
have decided that only certain genres of film are worthy. SciFi is almost
always shortchanged and horror is all but completely ignored. A film like
Halloween, whether you like it or not, did far more to change the future of
film than the majority of the films on that AFI list.
Example: One of the big complaints about newer films is that they all look
the same, steal from each other, etc... rather than being 'revolutionary'.
However, if you watched all the films on AFI's list from any specific decade
(and especially if you watched another dozen 'top' films from that same
decade that didn't make the list), you would largely come to the same
conclusion about every decade.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Well if it wasn't clear, I was exaggerating.
>
>I know you were exaggerating, but your point was still noted and understood.
>I just find it funny that we are to believe that these films are 'great'
>when they are of no interest to 99+% of potential viewers.
But that's true for most movies nominated for Academy Awards. Iin
movies there's a great disparity between art and entertainment that
for whatever reason doesn't exist anywhere else. And personally I'd
rather see an entertaining movie than a great movie but I think for a
list with as loaded a premise as the 100 best movies of all time you
have to look at movies that are art and not necessarily that are
popular.
>> And I was responding to
>> your point that this was a "film geek" list. There's clearly a
>> difference between a list composed by film experts and one made for a
>> mainstream-friendly special, just like there's a difference between
>> what an average person would put on 2007's top 10 list and what Roger
>> Ebert would, and AFI's list is mostly the latter, though a few obscure
>> choices made it.
>
>The real farce is exposed when the list from 10 years ago is compared with
>the current list. No intelligent person could actively claim that the
>changes (drastic jumps and falls) of a few of the films on that list are
>'logical' based upon any long term appreciation / understanding / whatever
>of the work.
I think that can be explained by the exposure these movies got from
the advent of dvd, especially with the multiple special editions being
released for movies considered deserving. VHS didn't treat these
movies with such respect, if they were released at all.
>> Note that I'm not saying an average person's top 10 list is any less
>> valid than Ebert's would be. I myself would likely go see Spiderman
>> rather than whatever is big with critics right now. But AFI's list is
>> made up of the Spidermen of the last 100 years.
>
>Spiderman was a bad film. In fact, all three of them were bad, but the
>latest is the worst. The 'plot' was written by someone that clearly didn't
>care if anything even made sense. Spiderman 3 represents everything that
>makes people say that 'culture' and 'quality' are two different things. I
>would hope that people weren't saying that about too many of the 'AFI Top
>100' at the time they were originally released.
I think when AFI makes a list of the top 100 movies of the 21st
Century a Spiderman, Shrek and/or Pirates movie has more of a
likelyhood of being on it than any of the recent Oscar winners, many
of which will probably only be remembered by film experts, and the
same thing probably happened with movies from 50 years ago.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:14:21 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I know you were exaggerating, but your point was still noted and
>>understood.
>>I just find it funny that we are to believe that these films are 'great'
>>when they are of no interest to 99+% of potential viewers.
>
> But that's true for most movies nominated for Academy Awards.
My point is true for Academt Award voters as well.
>>The real farce is exposed when the list from 10 years ago is compared with
>>the current list. No intelligent person could actively claim that the
>>changes (drastic jumps and falls) of a few of the films on that list are
>>'logical' based upon any long term appreciation / understanding / whatever
>>of the work.
>
> I think that can be explained by the exposure these movies got from
> the advent of dvd, especially with the multiple special editions being
> released for movies considered deserving. VHS didn't treat these
> movies with such respect, if they were released at all.
Do you really think that 'Dr. Zhivago' dropped 62+ places on the list
because of DVDs?
What about the 48 spot drop by 'African Queen' or the 56+ spot drop of
'Birth of a Nation'?
>>Spiderman was a bad film. In fact, all three of them were bad, but the
>>latest is the worst. The 'plot' was written by someone that clearly
>>didn't
>>care if anything even made sense. Spiderman 3 represents everything that
>>makes people say that 'culture' and 'quality' are two different things. I
>>would hope that people weren't saying that about too many of the 'AFI Top
>>100' at the time they were originally released.
>
> I think when AFI makes a list of the top 100 movies of the 21st
> Century a Spiderman, Shrek and/or Pirates movie has more of a
> likelyhood of being on it than any of the recent Oscar winners, many
> of which will probably only be remembered by film experts, and the
> same thing probably happened with movies from 50 years ago.
Shrek and Pirates would both be worthy. The first Shrek, in my opinion,
played a great amount of tribute to the film industry (even if it was making
fun of Disney for the most part). Pirates has all the special effects
'bigness' of Spiderman, but actually has an intelligent/ logical plot.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:14:21 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>I know you were exaggerating, but your point was still noted and
>>>understood.
>>>I just find it funny that we are to believe that these films are 'great'
>>>when they are of no interest to 99+% of potential viewers.
>>
>> But that's true for most movies nominated for Academy Awards.
>
>My point is true for Academt Award voters as well.
Okay then who do you think should be entrusted with a "best of" list?
>>>The real farce is exposed when the list from 10 years ago is compared with
>>>the current list. No intelligent person could actively claim that the
>>>changes (drastic jumps and falls) of a few of the films on that list are
>>>'logical' based upon any long term appreciation / understanding / whatever
>>>of the work.
>>
>> I think that can be explained by the exposure these movies got from
>> the advent of dvd, especially with the multiple special editions being
>> released for movies considered deserving. VHS didn't treat these
>> movies with such respect, if they were released at all.
>
>Do you really think that 'Dr. Zhivago' dropped 62+ places on the list
>because of DVDs?
>What about the 48 spot drop by 'African Queen' or the 56+ spot drop of
>'Birth of a Nation'?
DVDs likely brought some movies to the forefront while other movies
faded. What else changed in the past 10 years that would explain it?
>>>Spiderman was a bad film. In fact, all three of them were bad, but the
>>>latest is the worst. The 'plot' was written by someone that clearly
>>>didn't
>>>care if anything even made sense. Spiderman 3 represents everything that
>>>makes people say that 'culture' and 'quality' are two different things. I
>>>would hope that people weren't saying that about too many of the 'AFI Top
>>>100' at the time they were originally released.
>>
>> I think when AFI makes a list of the top 100 movies of the 21st
>> Century a Spiderman, Shrek and/or Pirates movie has more of a
>> likelyhood of being on it than any of the recent Oscar winners, many
>> of which will probably only be remembered by film experts, and the
>> same thing probably happened with movies from 50 years ago.
>
>Shrek and Pirates would both be worthy. The first Shrek, in my opinion,
>played a great amount of tribute to the film industry (even if it was making
>fun of Disney for the most part). Pirates has all the special effects
>'bigness' of Spiderman, but actually has an intelligent/ logical plot.
You're out on a limb with your Spiderman hatred. The first movie got a
90% positive rating at Rotten Tomatoes, the second 93%, the third 61%
"Pirates 1" got 79%, 54% for second, and the third 46%.
"Shrek" got 89%, 88%, and 41%
(yes, I know, you'll point out that it only measures movie critics,
and the IMDB ratings only represent IMDB users, and the box office
doesn't reflect a movie's quality... which takes us back to the first
question, who do you think should be entrusted with defining "great"
movies?)
Steve Newport
diml...@yahoo.com (David)
Spiderman, Shrek and/or Pirates movie has more of a likelyhood of being
on it than any of the recent Oscar winners
God, I hope not.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:27:04 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>My point is true for Academt Award voters as well.
>
> Okay then who do you think should be entrusted with a "best of" list?
Other than me?
>>Do you really think that 'Dr. Zhivago' dropped 62+ places on the list
>>because of DVDs?
>>What about the 48 spot drop by 'African Queen' or the 56+ spot drop of
>>'Birth of a Nation'?
>
> DVDs likely brought some movies to the forefront while other movies
> faded. What else changed in the past 10 years that would explain it?
I already explained 'Birth of a Nation' as being a prime example of voters
'choosing one film from X'. Unless you think it is pure coincidense that
one move jump as the other dropped.
Meanwhile, maybe Dr. Zhivago dropped because of the current pro-war
mentality by the 'elite' voter types...or maybe the 'randomness' of their
voting really is a clear demonstration as to the level of validity to the
list.
>>Shrek and Pirates would both be worthy. The first Shrek, in my opinion,
>>played a great amount of tribute to the film industry (even if it was
>>making
>>fun of Disney for the most part). Pirates has all the special effects
>>'bigness' of Spiderman, but actually has an intelligent/ logical plot.
>
> You're out on a limb with your Spiderman hatred. The first movie got a
> 90% positive rating at Rotten Tomatoes, the second 93%, the third 61%
At least viewers of the third film recognise total crap when they see it.
One thing about Spiderman, though, people aren't going to see it for
'logical/intelligent' plot. Is it really a surprise to you that people
going to the theater for 'mindless entertainment' would give Spiderman a
good rating?
> "Pirates 1" got 79%, 54% for second, and the third 46%.
I've seen several internet complaints about the plotline being 'too
complicated'. That type of complaint will likely serve the third Pirates
well in the 'long term view'.
> "Shrek" got 89%, 88%, and 41%
>
> (yes, I know, you'll point out that it only measures movie critics,
> and the IMDB ratings only represent IMDB users, and the box office
> doesn't reflect a movie's quality... which takes us back to the first
> question, who do you think should be entrusted with defining "great"
> movies?)
Just looking at the ratings for Shrek 2 and Shrek 3 I can say without a
doubt that anyone that rated 2 as good and 3 as bad should not be entrusted
to vote in any 'best of' list. As an overall rating, either they are both
good or they are both bad. The 47% of voters that indicate otherwise are
making arbitrary distinctions much like the AFI voters that swapped out
'Birth of as Nation' for 'Intolerance'.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:27:04 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>My point is true for Academt Award voters as well.
>>
>> Okay then who do you think should be entrusted with a "best of" list?
>
>Other than me?
I saw that coming!
>>>Do you really think that 'Dr. Zhivago' dropped 62+ places on the list
>>>because of DVDs?
>>>What about the 48 spot drop by 'African Queen' or the 56+ spot drop of
>>>'Birth of a Nation'?
>>
>> DVDs likely brought some movies to the forefront while other movies
>> faded. What else changed in the past 10 years that would explain it?
>
>I already explained 'Birth of a Nation' as being a prime example of voters
>'choosing one film from X'. Unless you think it is pure coincidense that
>one move jump as the other dropped.
I don't see why the voters would make arbitrary changes. Aside from
DVDs there might be other explanations; maybe it demonstrates a change
of what's being taught in film schools in the last 10 years. But there
have to be explanations.
>>>Shrek and Pirates would both be worthy. The first Shrek, in my opinion,
>>>played a great amount of tribute to the film industry (even if it was
>>>making
>>>fun of Disney for the most part). Pirates has all the special effects
>>>'bigness' of Spiderman, but actually has an intelligent/ logical plot.
>>
>> You're out on a limb with your Spiderman hatred. The first movie got a
>> 90% positive rating at Rotten Tomatoes, the second 93%, the third 61%
>
>At least viewers of the third film recognise total crap when they see it.
>One thing about Spiderman, though, people aren't going to see it for
>'logical/intelligent' plot. Is it really a surprise to you that people
>going to the theater for 'mindless entertainment' would give Spiderman a
>good rating?
If you're not going to let film experts make a "best of" list then why
not base it on what providesgeneral audiences the most mindless
entertainment?
>> "Pirates 1" got 79%, 54% for second, and the third 46%.
>
>I've seen several internet complaints about the plotline being 'too
>complicated'. That type of complaint will likely serve the third Pirates
>well in the 'long term view'.
>
>> "Shrek" got 89%, 88%, and 41%
>>
>> (yes, I know, you'll point out that it only measures movie critics,
>> and the IMDB ratings only represent IMDB users, and the box office
>> doesn't reflect a movie's quality... which takes us back to the first
>> question, who do you think should be entrusted with defining "great"
>> movies?)
>
>Just looking at the ratings for Shrek 2 and Shrek 3 I can say without a
>doubt that anyone that rated 2 as good and 3 as bad should not be entrusted
>to vote in any 'best of' list.
I thought "Shrek 2" was fresh and funny. "Shrek 3" was the very
definition of cashing in. And "Pirates" plots are overwhelmed by
weirdness and special-effects and run 40 minutes too long, leaving
viewers dazed and confused.
WQ
> "David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:27:04 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>My point is true for Academt Award voters as well.
>
> > Okay then who do you think should be entrusted with a "best of" list?
>
> Other than me?
--- Never mind other than you, how about just you? If a Top 100 is
too hard, then why not come up with your Top 10 or 20? Or simply 10
or 20 films in no particular order that you think should be on a Top
100 list, whether they're on it or not.
>
> >>Do you really think that 'Dr. Zhivago' dropped 62+ places on the list
> >>because of DVDs?
> >>What about the 48 spot drop by 'African Queen' or the 56+ spot drop of
> >>'Birth of a Nation'?
> > DVDs likely brought some movies to the forefront while other movies
> > faded. What else changed in the past 10 years that would explain it?
> I already explained 'Birth of a Nation' as being a prime example of voters
> 'choosing one film from X'. Unless you think it is pure coincidense that
> one move jump as the other dropped.
>
> Meanwhile, maybe Dr. Zhivago dropped because of the current pro-war
> mentality by the 'elite' voter types...or maybe the 'randomness' of their
> voting really is a clear demonstration as to the level of validity to the
> list.
--- I think I mentioned this to you before, which obviously didn't
register. The people who voted this time around are not necessarily
the same people who voted the last time around. That's why you'll
obviously see a difference between lists. The legitimate part of the
list is what's still on it that was on it before, regardless of rank.
> >>Shrek and Pirates would both be worthy. The first Shrek, in my opinion,
> >>played a great amount of tribute to the film industry (even if it was
> >>making
> >>fun of Disney for the most part). Pirates has all the special effects
> >>'bigness' of Spiderman, but actually has an intelligent/ logical plot.
>
> > You're out on a limb with your Spiderman hatred. The first movie got a
> > 90% positive rating at Rotten Tomatoes, the second 93%, the third 61%
>
> At least viewers of the third film recognise total crap when they see it.
> One thing about Spiderman, though, people aren't going to see it for
> 'logical/intelligent' plot. Is it really a surprise to you that people
> going to the theater for 'mindless entertainment' would give Spiderman a
> good rating?
--- Spiderman 1 was a pretty decent film. Spiderman 2 was ok, but I
was already beginning to tire of the sequelization of it. Spiderman 3
I avoided, being officially weary of the sequelization of it. And
that's what my Spidey sense tells me.
Barry Margolin
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But that's true for most movies nominated for Academy Awards. Iin
> movies there's a great disparity between art and entertainment that
> for whatever reason doesn't exist anywhere else.
I'd say that it *does* exist elsewhere. I think this dispararity is
found in most forms of popular culture: TV, music, and books. Movies
may be the most extreme example, due to the economic differences.
Movies are very expensive to make, and thus need to bring in lots of
money at the box office. Film studios have discovered that it's easier
to do this by making movies that appeal to teenage boys who will see the
movie with lots of their buddies, and watch the same movie over and
over, rather than discerning adults who only go to movies occasionally
when they can get a sitter.
But other forms of entertainment are similar. How many books on the
best seller list are considered to be examples of great literature?
Isn't the list regularly populated by authors like Jackie Collins and
Tom Clancy? I think I've read that the most popular genre of books is
Harlequin Romances.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Steve Newport
diml...@yahoo.com (David)
The top grossers of the last 30 years are some of the period's worst
films.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
David
<bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <c8f38396eh94b7hc1...@4ax.com>,
> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> But that's true for most movies nominated for Academy Awards. Iin
>> movies there's a great disparity between art and entertainment that
>> for whatever reason doesn't exist anywhere else.
>
>I'd say that it *does* exist elsewhere. I think this dispararity is
>found in most forms of popular culture: TV, music, and books.
I don't think it's true with tv and music. Usually what's popular is
also what wins Emmys and Grammys.
>But other forms of entertainment are similar. How many books on the
>best seller list are considered to be examples of great literature?
People are reluctant to declare something as "great literature"
probably because it feels silly to compare something today to classic
works that have built up reputations over hundreds of years. It'll
take at least another 50 years to see if anything published today is
great literature.
Barry Margolin
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:42:30 -0400, Barry Margolin
> <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <c8f38396eh94b7hc1...@4ax.com>,
> > David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But that's true for most movies nominated for Academy Awards. Iin
> >> movies there's a great disparity between art and entertainment that
> >> for whatever reason doesn't exist anywhere else.
> >
> >I'd say that it *does* exist elsewhere. I think this dispararity is
> >found in most forms of popular culture: TV, music, and books.
>
> I don't think it's true with tv and music. Usually what's popular is
> also what wins Emmys and Grammys.
In the case of Grammys they've arranged it so that this is easy to
accomplish. They've categorized it so that genres aren't generally
competing with each other directly. So no one has to vote on whether a
a Beethoven concerto is better than a rap song.
On the other hand, there have been many instances of series winning
Emmys after having been cancelled due to poor ratings.
But I wasn't really addressing the issue of winning awards. I was
responding to your comment about the disparity between art and
entertainment. Or are you equating "art" with "award-winning"? That
generally depends on the specific award -- Oscar voters seem to have a
"classier" image of what they're doing than Grammy and Emmy voters;
they're trying to identify the artistic wheat among the popular chaff.
>
> >But other forms of entertainment are similar. How many books on the
> >best seller list are considered to be examples of great literature?
>
> People are reluctant to declare something as "great literature"
> probably because it feels silly to compare something today to classic
> works that have built up reputations over hundreds of years. It'll
> take at least another 50 years to see if anything published today is
> great literature.
I'm going to go on a limb and say that "Hollywood Wives" is not going to
be discussed much in any future classes on history of literature. Then
again, Shakespeare's plays may have been the soap operas of his day, and
The Illiad and The Odyssey were the Star Wars of ancient Greece. Now
I'm starting to remember the scene in Woody Allen's "Sleeper" where he
learned that most present-day vices are considered virtues in the future.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Aside from
> DVDs there might be other explanations; maybe it demonstrates a change
> of what's being taught in film schools in the last 10 years.
That is possible. It is also a reason why the list should not be taken
seriously. People voting a film as being 'great' because their film school
class told them it was is a perfect example of people that should not be
allowed to vote for 'great' films in the first place.
>>One thing about Spiderman, though, people aren't going to see it for
>>'logical/intelligent' plot. Is it really a surprise to you that people
>>going to the theater for 'mindless entertainment' would give Spiderman a
>>good rating?
>
> If you're not going to let film experts make a "best of" list then why
> not base it on what providesgeneral audiences the most mindless
> entertainment?
Films on the 'best ever' list should be entertaining AND have an
intelligent/logical plotline. Surely, there have been 100 films in the
history of mankind that fit that mold.
> I thought "Shrek 2" was fresh and funny. "Shrek 3" was the very
> definition of cashing in. And "Pirates" plots are overwhelmed by
> weirdness and special-effects and run 40 minutes too long, leaving
> viewers dazed and confused.
Shrek 1 was 'fresh and funny' Shrek 2 and 3 were both 'cashing in'. Were
you really one of the people that couldn't follow the plot of Pirates
movies? BTW, did you see Spiderman 3 and actually think that it had an
intelligent plot?