So far: 1000 invitations sent out, 31 completed questionnaires. Anther 12 participants have started (and saved) the questionnaire but have not finished. (I'm in that last group, myself, as I blow through as many NetFlix discs as I can.)

Here are some comments from the "comments" field:

• Pieces of April? Unfortunately I think I had more than my fair share of "definitely does not belong"s, which perhaps I should have reserved for some of the more unctuous entries. But ideology's a stinger; good films aren't necessarily spiritually significant films, films dealing with spiritual subject matter aren't necessarily significant films, films that provoke only a single and much intended thought are not thought-provoking. Nice to see the Abuladze, who the hell nominated that?! I tip my hat. Sad to have missed (forgotten about) the nominating process. I've neglected my "metier," Artavazd Pelesyan in the past due to the difficulty in seeing his films, but the folks at ubuweb recently uploaded one. Next year.
• Please consider Legends of the Fall and Meet Joe Black as entries, for their interaction with faith and love, respectively.
• the lion, the witch, and the wardrobe john Q gladiator
• Here are a few films that I felt deserved nomination that were not included on your list: Bringing Out the Dead (1999) Martin Scorsese Casino (1995) Martin Scorsese Defending Your Life (1991) Albert Brooks Dreams (1990) Akira Kurasowa Faces (1968) John Cassavetes Hardcore (1979) Paul Schrader Household Saints (1993) Nancy Savoca The Winslow Boy (1999) David Mamet
• A) a few potential nominees that I feel should be someday considered for voting: 1) Shoes of the Fisherman (1965? -stars Anthouny Quinn) 2) The Thin Red Line (Malick) 3) Apocalypse Now (Coppola) 4) Friendly Persuasion (Gary Cooper as a Civil War-era Quaker) 5) more Capra B) How does one buy or otherwise see/acquire a t-shirt of the type you're giving away?
• Some possible additions: Turtles Can Fly Oldboy Everything is Illuminated Paradise Now Osama Dark Days
• Hail Mary, Passion, In Praise Of Love, Notre Musique by Godard -- Raging Bull, Gangs Of New York by Scorsese -- Naked, All Or Nothing by Leigh -- La Religieuse by Rivette. Please remove all movies by Spielberg and Shyamalan, it is a terrible offence to have their names in the same category as Tarkovsky and Bergman.
• great survey - thanks for inviting me again!
• suggestions: look into recommended films by Jeffrey Overstreet (Christian Film Critic). ALSO: Sister Act 2: Back in the habit Pirates of the Carribean 2: Dead Man's Chest X-men (trilogy)
• Some fun additions to the list this year. As always I suspect some nominations are more about personal faves than spirituality. But lasa, it's the price you pay for having a completely non-specific definition of spiritual. (Which I am in favor of) The survey is very user friendly, and easy to understand.

A few comments from me -- feel free to add your own:

• Recent films are not eligible, so "Narnia" and "Dad Man's Chest" certainly won't be on the list any time soon.
• To preview the t-shirts, visit the A&F store!
• I do not edit the list. The only pseudo-control I have is deciding the eligibility rules and weighting the votes, but I do so consistently and without regard for any opinions I have about any entries.

I finished sending out the invitations tonight -- an additional 419 invitations. We're up to 34 completed questionnaires, as well. I deleted the "missing in action" thread from last year, so I'll have to do some digging to try to figure out the response rate and how it compares to last year.

One more comment:

Impressive list. I'm a little overwhelmed that I haven't seen many of these films. But it does seem like the most diverse and artistically bold list yet. And that's a great thing.

I was wondering if there was a possibility to build a slight bit of "conservatism" (for lack of a better word) into the list - i.e. films that have been on the list before get a slight edge in the voting over films that are newly nominated.

What I'm envisioning is something like this: for every year that a film has been in the final Top 100 list, it receives one "definitely belongs on the list" vote, up to a total of (say) five. That would give previous years' voting some weight, though not make them a determining factor.

Maybe something like this is already in place, but if not - that's my recommendation.

Yes, Denes, that is the case. Films that have already been elected to either the 2004 or 2005 Top100 lists would get some kind of bonus factored in, as would films from "endangered" decades, etc. I have to be careful here, however, because this disproportionately would affect films that have fewer votes. So, for example, the bonus you propose would barefuly affect the LOTR films but might completely skew the results for The Werckmeister Harmonies.

We're up to 55 completed questionnaires (including one from an Oxford Don!), plus 24 saved "starts". Here are the new comments:

1. keep up the good work.
2. There are a number of movies we have seen that my wife and I think are spiritually significant which are not on your list at all. Affliction Aguire, the wrath of God Au Revoir les Enfants Baran Born into Brothels Cache Central Station The Circle Constant Gardner Control Room Darwin's Nightmare The Deep end Dirty Pretty Things Facing Windows The Fast Runner The 400 Blows Grizzley man Hiroshima Mon amour The Hours House of Sand and Fog In the Bedroom Indochine Intimate Strangers Iris Kandahar Maborosi Maria, Full of Grace Merchant of Venice Motorcycle Diaries Mystic River Night of the shooting Stars nobody Knows Paradise Now Rabbit-Proof Fence Shattered Glass Sophie Scholl, the final days Talk to Her To Live The White Balloon Widow of St. Pierre Woman in the Dunes.
3. I regret that I haven't seen so many of the nominated films, some of which are not available on DVD (yet). I probably could have voted confidently based on A&F and/or IMDb summaries/reviews, but that wasn't an option, and probably shouldn't be, so I'm not really complaining. Hope to see at least one Peter Weir film return to the final 100 this year :-)
4. thanks for elevating the ghetto

I *hope* #4 is truly a compliment, in which case we should be flattered. (I.E. I wouldn't want to "elevate" the ghetto, I want to tear it down, and I think the list does this to some extent.)

re: #2 -- participate in the nominations process, folks! And only films prior to 2005 are eligible. (So, for example, The Constant Gardener isn't.)

-- Alan

After writing my missive on TMOJ, I took the survey. Very well done! I haven't seen many of the nominated films, so I was glad to see the default of "I haven't seen this film" preselected. Gosh, that made the survey easier!

Do you weight the votes of published critics (or overquota)? That seems to be a fair procedure.

How will you analyze the data? Averaging the scores (4 pt scale?) and then ranking from highest to lowest?

Will you cross tab? I so want to know how many people who've seen and rated "Au Hasard Balthazar" as definitely belonging also rated "Star Wars" as definitely belonging!

Yes. There are several factors that can boost the impact of participant votes, including: "Critic" status (including FFCC membership), level of post count at A&F, paid membership status at A&F, gift certificates to chocolate shops in the Philadelphia area, etc. There will be no "jury" this year; it's not needed.

I will also look to see if any participants overwhelmingly use 5s and 1s ("Definitely does/does not belong"), which may indicate attempts to unfairly manipulate the list. If I conclude that to be the case, I would either devalue or eliminate such responses.

Yes, but as the votes will be weighted according to the above, plus entry-specific bonuses for certain characteristics (such as previous Top100 status). It's a bit more complicated, but you've got the gist of it. I haven't yet sat down and worked out all the details, but I expect to do so next week (when my family's out of town and I'll have a bit more time).

As far as additional analysis--for me, it's interesting just browsing the grid of votes, being able to see who's see what and who likes what. Call it a perk. I won't share any of the individual votes at all. I want participants to be free to vote as they really wish and not feel pressured to give films certain ratings either to "correct" the list or to comply with what they perceive as the positions of opinion leaders here.

To guard against errors, I am going to calculate the final Top100 twice, from scratch, and make sure I get identical results both times. Paid members (and any journalist writing an article...) will get early access to the final list.

Eventually I'd like to do something like that, but I don't have the programming skills or knowledge of statistical methods to do that just now--although I am learning more all the time.

In the short term, I might do it on a film-by-film basis. I.E. if you pick one film off the list, I might have a list of "Participants who liked this film also liked...", listing the highest per-film scores for participants who gave a particular entry a "definitely belongs" score.

God willing, I would like, for example, to allow users to select their favorite five films from the list and have the system suggest some other films that they might like. If the site takes in enough revenue, I might even hire a programmer to do some of that, or look for commercial packages. (We're in the black, but don't have enough to afford that just yet.)

Oops, sorry that was a typo. I meant to say "Oxford Dan". I was well-dresed when I took the survey this year.

Do Oxford Dons get added weight? Are they allowed to vote for C. S. Lewis inspired films or is there a conflict of interest?

Do all academics get more credit or just ivy leaguers/old schoolers?

Do honorary degrees confer more weight, or does it have to be an earned degree in a liberal arts field?

Do B.A.s count as much as B.S.? (Silly question, I know, but just wanted an excuse to let Beavis and DanBuck go "hehehhehe...he used the initials B.S........heheheheh).

Peace.

Ken (aka Dr. Professor Smart Ass)

Ken, C'mon give me and Beavis some credit. This kind of thing is wayyyy below me.



hehehhehe... he said ass.

Ken, I'll give Beth extra credit, but you're going to have to work for it.

That's okay, Beth and I only really disagree about Buffy, Bollywood, Altman, Magnolia (I think), Little House on the Prairie, and, according to Neflix:

Million Dollar Baby
The Bourne Supremacy
Cold Mountain
The Upside of Anger
Proof
The Village
Fight Club
Chasing Amy

So I guess I can live with that, especially since, as I look at the list, I honstely can't remember which side of the disagreement I'm on for any of the films mentioned except maybe The Village, which I have have little fear would impact the vote here.

HOWEVER...I do have to say for the benefit of all listening and the integrity of the project....

Alan is about to give extra credit to someone who gave The Village four (yes that's 4) stars.

There ain't yet been the degree invented or conferred that would put enough weight behind that opinion to sway me. (except maybe a J.D. )

Peace.

Ken

I had no idea. Beth, thanks for already completing the survey, but I'm afraid...aw, nuts.

First, this thread is getting awfully personal for something that was going to remain anonymous But please, don't give me extra credit for anything! Everyone knows Alan is kidding, right?

Second, I gave The Village 4 stars? What was I thinking? Maybe it was my DH...

Beth:

You married someone who gave The Village 4 stars? (You know I'm gonna have to take this up with aforementioned DH don't you?)

But you are right, sorry I didn't read the beginning of the thread that said to stay anonymous.

Peace.

Ken

NOT that I consider myself an "opinion leader," I hasten to add.

Of course, The Village isn't a Top 100 nominee, in any case.

We Village fans are a lonely lot.

I won't shed any tears. That'll be Ken's job, when the list comes out, and Magnolia is sitting pretty on it. [emoticon removed, because we all know that this is a nasty, ill-intended comment, designed explicitly to make Ken feel isolated and inferior. No winking allowed!!]

: We Village fans are a lonely lot.

Yes.

Dale

Ken shared what you allowed him to read on NetFlix; I haven't said a *thing* about your Survey responses.

And I'll be putting academics into the same category as professional critics with regard to any bonuses.

We're up to 63 now, 27 saved (and, no, I don't think the Superman comment was meant personally for me).

Here are two more comments:

• Was Hellboy not nominated? It was better than Superman - oh well maybe next time. Good show.
• Fun taking the poll. Another step forward, clear, well presented. Looking forward to seeing the results! Thanks for investing the time, energy and thought.

Yes.

(Hey, if this keeps up, we won't be so lonely anymore.)

I just finished voting, and I have to say that each time I do this I find myself voting with different (and always vague) criteria in mind. Several of my scores surprised me this time. I had always supported prolonging the periods between votes -- maybe stretching them out to every two or three years -- but now I'm growing to like the idea of the list as something more organic and shifting.

As always, I'll be really curious to see the results. (And the stats geek in me would love to go digging through all of Alan's data.)

OK, we're over the initial "bubble" of responses...only a few new ones today, bringing us up to 66 (30 saved).

SO, that means that some time in the next week, I'll produce the "MISSING IN ACTION" thread that will list the top 10 posters at A&F who haven't yet submitted their responses. You know who you are. (I'll be on the list myself.) Soon everyone else will, too.

New comment (not Darren):

I think the idea behind this site is very good! Hope I could contribute by taking the survey.

For those who need a cheat sheet, Netflix has a top 25 spiritual films. For some reason it doesn't look like our list.

"Faith & Spirituality Documentaries" ??

There *are* several that are or have been on our list, including [i]The Shawshank Redemption, Dead Man Walking, The Straight Story, Luther, Dogma, Schindler's List, The Passion of the Christ," and there are several others that are nominated or not yet eligible for our list.

I tried filling out the survey earlier today, but the site is slower than slow and just hung there. I couldn't even make it through the first page of titles.

#$@&!

That's what I get for going to a double-feature!

And that's why we don't host A&F over there any more. I'll open a ticket with them and hopefully it will be back up and running soon.

(BTW, it's nearly impossible to lose anyone's vote. As soon as each questionnaire is completed, I have the system e-mail me a copy. I also backup the survey database frequently.)

It seems to be working OK for me, now. Is it working OK for you, Jason?

We're up to 71 responses.

Comments:

1. Whoever nominated A MOMENT OF INNOCENCE will be my BFF!!!!!! (Except that it was probably me, and me being my own best friend is a little weird.) Hey, so what happened to the shorts category that was bandied about a couple years back?
2. I guess I've seen a relatively small number of these titles. In the future I hope I can catch up on more of them.
3. This is a great list! I wish I would've seen more films, but it'll give me something to rent over the next year.

Regarding #1, I don't think we ever had a "shorts" category, but there were some shorts nominated a few years ago. I need to fulfill something I'd planned, that is, to publish a lit of all nominated short films.

Back on topic...

We're up to 74 responses, 33 saved. Comments:

• Arts and Faith is the best movie forum on the net.
• I'm afraid I have not seen most of the movies listed but I hope that my opinion of those I have seen come in useful. Thanks.

And we're truly global: In addition to the USA, I've received responses from the Canada, the UK, Sweden, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand...even Texas!

I will be sending out e-mail reminders this Thursday evening and the following Thursday evening. Voting closes on July 31st. I will post the "missing in action" list this weekend.

I received an e-mail message from an individual asking if he or she could post their Survey invitation on another message board. The answer was an emphatic "no". The invitations are personal, with a invitee-specific URL at the end. They should not be forwarded or shared. Individuals are, of course, welcome to write about A&F and encourage others to register here and request invitations to participate.

OK ... I've sent out the first reminder. We're now up to 38 saved responses and 96 completed questionnaires, including new ones from the UK, Canada, the Netherlands...and Portugal!

Still, we're nowhere near last years' response of 178 completed questionnaires. I'm hoping we'll break 130.

Recent comments:

• I need to see more films
• Man, I need to get going on netflix. Seems I've been lax in the film dept. The hard part is sifting through all the aforementioned films and picking out the most important. Considering some of the choices, I would have liked to have seen The Four Feathers (Shekhar Kapur, 2002) on the choice list, at least. Otherwise, to an amateur, this looks pretty good. Great job for those putting this together!
• On quite a few of these films, it would have been helpful to have more of an explanation of why they are on this list (why they are considered spiritually significant). It has been ages since I have seen some of them so I marked the middle choice for quite a few.
• Looks great, thanks for all your hard work in this.
• As a member, I understand my votes count for more. After looking through the list, I'm not sure that should be true for this member. Geez, I've seen nothing, nothing!
• I have enjoyed being a part of the Arts and Faith discussion board and appreciate the opportunity to participate in the top 100 voting process.

Regarding the third comment (about why certain films are 'spiritually significant'), the unique structure of the list makes an easy explanation impossible. Since on an administrative level, I don't define the term, it has its broadest possible meaning. The 2004 FAQ does pick this apart a bit, for those who are interested.

I'll send out a final reminder next Thursday, and this weekend I'll publish the "missing in action" list for the top A&F posters who haven't completed their questionnaires.

OK, with the reminder and public taunting, we're now up to 115 responses. We might just make 140!

New comments:

1. Thank you for your well designed top100 survey, Reviewing the top100 nominations list was an eye-opener to me. I realized that I have just seen a fraction of the films and some of them have moved my soul, touched my heart and made a difference, so there are still some Spiritually significant masterpieces out there to experience, be influenced by and reflect on. What an enjoyable and great way to “spread the Word” ! I can’t think of a better way to share Arts&Faith Film appreciation with you than by giving and receiving recommendations this way. All members who sincerely feel they have somethig to say about any film on the list should participate. I also think it is important to filter out some films that might have meant something to some of us for a specific reason, but I personally feel don't quite make it to this list.
2. What is the nomination process for History of Violence to be added next year?
3. Go, Top 100, Go!
4. In order to try to give a fairer representation of my current thinking, I have marked all the films of which I have poor recall, and all the films that I haven't had a chance to reassess since I became a Christian as "unseen". I frequently find myself watching old favourites and not recognizing them now. The Three Colours Trilogy really should have been listed as three films and not one. I would have voted quite differently for each.
5. Thanks for the opportinity to participate!
6. {I} would *love* to see more "populist" films here, or maybe a 2 or 3-tiered list. So many of the titles here are obscure, difficult to find, and probably not easily accessible to many viewers. I like the way this is done on iTunes re. "essentials" in any given musical genre - 1st, a list of must-hear cuts, then a list of excellent but more obscure titles, then "deep catalog." I think that would make this list a lot easier for people to use, and (dare I say it?) less "elitist." Right now, it's a super film fan's list, and a rather odd one at that! I'd add some titles, too - more movies that people of all ages can grasp. (Two examples, picked at random and - erk! - foreign: The Story of the Weeping Camel and The White Balloon.)
7. There was a question about whether one is a professional film critic or not. I think it might be a good idea to include professional filmmakers in that question as well, and not just film critics (because, let's face it; who's more important to film?).

I loves them comments...

#2, regarding A History of Violence. This year we stopped at 2004. Next year we *might* push that forward to 2005. If we do, HoV would be eligible to be nominated like any other film, that is, following a public announcement of nominations, a film is nominated when a user formally nominates it in a topic set up for that purpose.
#4...OK, I guess--although I'd rather folks just skip movies they don't want to rate. Votes of "3" do affect a film's overall score (unless, of course, it was a 3.00 already {unlikely}). Next year I'll change the response from "I haven't seen this" to "I haven't seen this OR I don't want to rate this" so folks won't have to feel they're being dishonest.
#5 You're welcome
#6 What's so difficult about NetFlix? I've even made it super-easy by including NetFlix links on all the film listing pages. One click and it's in your queue. In any case, if "populist" critics like Overstreet continue to fail to participate in the survey, all the Weir-loving Star Wars geeks will just have to suffer (in silence).
#7 Very good point. Next year I'll change the question (and require a link to a person's IMDb page).

122 completed; 46 saved

comments:

• I think I'm beginning to get an idea of what I expect spiritually significant films should look like, and so I feel better with my voting this year. I also have seen a few more of the films, and hope to see even more by the next time we vote!
• I know it's too early, but count me disappointed that l'enfant didn't make it. Also, I own a lot of the films that I couldn't yet see... so it pained me to not yet vote on them. Thanks for this list, I got a lot of great movies for Christmas (and a lot of confused looks on the people who bought them for me.. The Dreyer boxed set, Balthazar, Francis, My Night With Maud's... even last year's #1, Rosetta on VHS... how it utterly killed me that I have not yet sat down and watched them.
• Thanks again...

L'Enfant didn't make it because it wasn't nominated. I don't go out of my way to beef up the nominations list. If you think it should be on the list, then nominate it next year.

129 completed; the last reminders were sent out.

One more comment:

what makes a film (or anything, really) "spiritually signifcant"? this seems very vague to me. should it carry profound insights or simply address ideas and raise questions for thought?

The answer, of course, is "yes"

OK, it's getting down to the wire!

We have: 145 completed questionnaires -- will we hit 160 before Monday??

Comments:

1. Where was Deepa Mehta's Water?
2. Where was City of Angels?
3. I nominate Cinema Paradiso for this or future surveys.
4. Interesting way of making a vote. The only way I can see it working is if, from a position of deep knowledge of all the nominated films, someone uses the result to try to understand the word 'spiritual' and what this means to people at the moment.
5. Wow. I'm impressed. This looks like it took a lot of work. Good job putting it together, Alan!
6. Just a sincere thank you for this list. It is the foundation of a high school Sunday School class and an adult small group that I lead. Love it, love it, love it.

My thoughts:
#1 and #2 ... they're not on the list, not nominated. Water won't be eligible for a few years. City of Angels is a (terrible) remake of a film that IS on the list: Wings of Desire -- and it wasn't nominated in any case.
#3 ... It's a bit late for this year, but feel free to nominate it (yourself) next year, in the nominations thread that will open after the Oscars.
#4 ... it's already working...and the goal isn't to understand the word 'spiritual'. The goal, for the third year in a row, is to identify those films that participants feel are "spiritually significant".
#5 ... thanks
#6 ... Wow -- this makes it all so worthwhile ... thank you! Best comment so far. I want to move and join your church!

When I co-taught an honors course we called "Popular Culture and the Sacred" last year, we used the 2004 list first as a guide to build up our library's DVD collection, and then for several film-related assignments in the course, including comparing it with the 2005 list. So another "Thank you" from me--to Alan and everyone who participated in nominating and voting for the lists.

ONE DAY left to go!

The survey system seems to be responding very slowly, although at around 3:30pm EST it sped up for me. If you are experiencing problems, please let me know.

Thanks for the background, Beth, that's fantastic!

We're up to 149 responses now, with several dozen saved. Here's a new comment: "What about the gospel of John?" Response: It's on the list (and the questionnaire).

Well, we're at 158. I've completed my questionnaire. I would really like to get to 160. A lot. So, for me if no other reason, please vote. If you've voted but know someone who hasn't, you have my blessing to nag ken him or her into submission.

There's still time to get your responses in. I'm not going to shut the survey down until I have a chance to download an analyze the results -- that probably means at around 8pm EST tomorrow (which coincidentally, is my daughter's bedtime). But it will be over then, whenever "then" actually is--don't hold me to the 8pm time. Please PM me if you need me to resend an invitation or a link to your saved (but incomplete) survey.

I will publish the results, for Members only, this weekend and for the general public on or about the 14th.

VOTE NOW! THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE!

A few more comments:

1. I love you guys! Thanks!!
2. Why is the list a set number of movies? I personally feel that it would be better to include every movie which recieves a number of votes and an average vote above a certain threshold (say, 20 votes and a 4.0 average). The way we have it now, I feel, is too much like a competition among incompatible choices (much like the Oscars).
3. Two nominees for next year: Apocalpyse Now and End of the Spear.

Responses:
1: Thanks--and there are gals here, too!
2: Good point, good question. It's a database, so the 100-film cutoff is a bit artificial. Last year, you had the option to also view the Top200. That option will continue to be available. Since the averages are weighted it wouldn't be a 4.0, but something could be worked out. The cutoff for the minimum votes to make the list will probably the lowest number of votes received by a film previously on the list. Last year, that was Werckmeister Harmonies. This year, especially with the WH DVD release, it may be something else, or I may hold it last year's level. I'll see. I've also toyed with the idea of making a "gold" list made up of, for example, films that have made the top100 list three years in a row.
3: I look forward to these being nominated next year, although The End of the Spear may not be eligible. Posting them in your comments doesn't guarantee a nomination. Get involved here and make your voice heard!

Alan: PM me my survey link and I'll try to do it tonight after I finish my e-mails because, well, you want to get to 160 and it's such a small thing to do to make someone happy.

Ken

2:40 in the morning....I hope you appreciate me.

What a guy. And he already found and finished the link.

We're at 160. There are still several hours to go if anyone wants to get their questionnaires in...

162 ... will we make it to 165?? Have you done your part?

Still 162...this is my last post before I close the survey @ 8pm-ish.

One more, um, anonymous comment from the Survey:

• The inclusion of Wit, Angels in American, The Decalogue, and The Man Who Planted Trees strikes me as arbitrary given the increasingly blurry line between television and theatrical productions. I also thought TMWPT was deemed a "short" last year and was hence ineligible. Don't get me wrong, it is a beautiful film and I'm all for its inclusion. But there seems little rhyme nor reason for what TV movies can be included and which can't or what short films can be nominated and which can't. Did we ever fess up to what the percentage number was of people who had to see the film in order for it to be eligible? I think this decision/rule has more impact on the list than anything else and can be used to create the final list that whoever is making that decision wants. I fail to see the logic in counting the Decalogue, Three Colors Trilogy, and The Godfather as one movie. Magnolia, spiritual! You have got to be kidding me! Icccccck. The list is sort of like the old saying about democracy...it's the worst list there is except for every other one.

Wise sounding fellow that. And I appreciate your editing out the part where I called Greydanus a deadbeat, since that window already passed.

The Man Who Planted Trees was not made for TV!

No but Wit and Angels were. My objection to TMWPT was that it was a short film, and I thought they were not eligible. (I conflated two separate objections in those two sentences. Poorly. (But I did rate TMWPT 5 even though I objected on some levels to its nomination.)

I know, I know, just clarifying. It's an A&F tradition.

If it were up to me (which obviously it isn't), I'd include all films regardless of where they were distributed or how long they were.

I lied. One more post:

If TMWPT is too short then, yes, it will be eliminated but placed in a separate 'shorts' list. (Yes, one could say that I will place it in my shorts.)

Now I gotta go. One hour left, deadbeats!

One other thing: I'll be having the board re-calculate everyone's post count. For those such as ken, this means your listed counts will go down (and your questionnaires will have less of an impact on the results).

Well, judging by last year's results, it couldn't be that much less.