Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Top100 Nominating Process: Please vote by November 28

   25 votes

  1. 1. Should we allow short films to be nominated?

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      13
    • It's complicated (see comments)
      2
  2. 2. Should we require a nomination to be seconded before appearing on the ballot?

    • Yes
      19
    • No
      6
    • It's complicated (see comments)
      0
  3. 3. Should we make [some past date] the cutoff release date for nominations?

    • Yes, December 31, 2008
      10
    • Yes, December 31, 2009
      8
    • I don't want a cutoff date
      7
    • I will suggest a different date in the comments
      0
  4. 4. Should we limit the number of times a director can appear on the Top 100?

    • Yes, 2 times
      5
    • Yes, 3 times
      11
    • Yes, 4 times
      1
    • No
      8
    • It's complicated (see comments)
      0
  5. 5. Should we nominate trilogies or series as one film?

    • Yes, always
      1
    • Yes, if they were made by the same director and filmed at the same time
      13
    • No. Every film must be nominated alone.
      6
    • It's complicated (see comments)
      5
  6. 6. Shall TV miniseries be disqualified? (i.e. is Decalogue bending the rules, or does it get a pass because parts of it appeared in theaters? Shall it be nominated only on the basis of the parts that appeared in theaters?)

    • Yes
      7
    • No
      12
    • It's complicated (see comments)
      6
  7. 7. Should we use a scale of 1-10 instead of 1 to 5?

    • Yes
      8
    • No, keep 1-5
      17
    • No, I suggest a different scale in the comments
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

31 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Hello friends!

We are trying to get nominations for the 2011 Top 100 opened. Before we can do that, we'd like to enlist your help making a couple decisions about the nomination process. I've gathered the most common suggestions about nomination methodology in this poll.

Please vote by the end of the day on Sunday, November 28. If you choose "It's complicated," or if you have another nomination concern that wasn't included in this poll, comment in this thread and we'll talk about it. We hope to officially open nominations on December 1.

Thanks!

Yours,

Anna

P.S. I have added a parenthetical to the penultimate question: "i.e. Is Decalogue bending the rules, or does it get a pass because parts of it appeared in theaters? Shall it be nominated only on the basis of the parts that appeared in theaters?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I voted "It's Complicated" on the miniseries question because I wasn't sure if it was asking me to answer the negative question (should miniseries be disqualified) or the parenthetical positive question (should The Decalogue get a pass), and Yes on one would mean No on the other. I'd vote for miniseries to be included and voted on the same way movies are. Since I watch almost all my movies on DVD, the "appeared in theaters" distinction isn't very relevant for me. Edited by Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"It's Complicated" regarding shorts and mini-series (in other words, [i]The Decalogue[/i].) The reason it is complicated is because it's complicated, and a steadfast rule would make it uncomplicated, which by definition, it isn't. Some works need to be argued about and wrestled into submission. A rule like this calls for black and white, when clearly it is more complicated than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Persona' date='22 November 2010 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1290480335' post='235369']
"It's Complicated" regarding shorts and mini-series (in other words, [i]The Decalogue[/i].)
[/quote]

Well, that and Best of Youth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Tyler' date='22 November 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1290483090' post='235379']
[quote name='Persona' date='22 November 2010 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1290480335' post='235369']
"It's Complicated" regarding shorts and mini-series (in other words, [i]The Decalogue[/i].)
[/quote]

Well, that and Best of Youth.
[/quote]
Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Re: miniseries, I have no trouble at all saying that shows with a definite beginning, middle and end (usually produced under the supervision of a single director) should be included while open-ended series (which can last for years and usually have different directors every week even when they don't) should not.

And FWIW, I wouldn't make theatrical exhibition part of the criteria, because I have seen entire mini-series -- such as the full-length versions of Ingmar Bergman's [i]Scenes from a Marriage[/i], Lars von Trier's [i]The Kingdom[/i], Olivier Assayas's [i]Carlos[/i], etc. -- on the big screen at festivals and cinematheques in single sittings, and it wouldn't surprise me if just about every mini-series with a good reputation among cinephiles had been screened in a theatre somewhere at some point. (The entire [i]Dekalog[/i] has been shown on the big screen here in Vancouver a few times, too, albeit spread out over a few nights.)

Re: release dates, are we referring to the films' American releases? North American releases? festival screenings? etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I voted "It's Complicated" on trilogies, because it HAS to be on a case-by-case basis, there just isn't any other way, because there's so much gray area between clear cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oops, sorry about the conflicting negative/positive question.

Just to clarify: it's absolutely fine if we take miniseries, etc on a case-by-case basis. We'd just like to know in advance what we're going to do. I like PTC's suggestion for a general guideline, though.

This poll was mostly meant to gauge interest and feeling about the nomination issues. It doesn't mean that whatever option "wins" the poll is law.

Thanks for your comments everyone. Keep it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Film trilogies & series--it's complicated because I understand "made by the same director" but not "filmed at the same time." [i]The Lord of the Rings[/i], for example--released 2001-2003. Do three consecutive years count as "the same time"?

TV miniseries--Let's just say [i]The Decalogue[/i] can be grandfathered in--it's made it onto all the past lists--and other former TV miniseries are just going to have to live with being TV. Some day, TV will get its own Top 100 ;-) Edited by BethR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

BethR wrote:
: [i]The Lord of the Rings[/i], for example--released 2001-2003. Do three consecutive years count as "the same time"?

Actually, the production on all three films took place simultaneously between roughly 1999 and 2001, and then the post-production (visual effects, music, etc.) was completed one film at a time. So the fact that each installment was released on a different day -- or, come to that, in a different year -- is kind of a non-issue.

A more complicated test case might be something like the first two [i]Superman[/i] movies, which were conceived as a two-part story, and indeed Richard Donner had already directed about half of [i]Superman II[/i] when the producers decided to put the production on hold and focus on finishing the post-production on the first film. After the first film came out, Donner was replaced with Richard Lester, who filmed all the bits that Donner had never gotten around to, kept most of the bits that Donner had shot (including every scene that featured Gene Hackman) and re-shot some other bits, resulting in a film that was partly "made at the same time" and partly not.

: TV miniseries--Let's just say [i]The Decalogue[/i] can be grandfathered in--it's made it onto all the past lists . . .

Pfeh. New management, new rules!

: . . . and other former TV miniseries are just going to have to live with being TV.

Ah, but what about cases where a mini-series has been condensed for the big screen and has earned acclaim there, as with [i]Das Boot[/i] (a 6-hour mini-series that was condensed to 2 hours in the '80s and 3 hours in the '90s) or some of Ingmar Bergman's films (such as [i]Fanny and Alexander[/i], which is on the current A&F Top 100)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Peter T Chattaway' date='25 November 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1290741904' post='235589']
BethR wrote:
: [i]The Lord of the Rings[/i], for example--released 2001-2003. Do three consecutive years count as "the same time"?

Actually, the production on all three films took place simultaneously between roughly 1999 and 2001, and then the post-production (visual effects, music, etc.) was completed one film at a time. So the fact that each installment was released on a different day -- or, come to that, in a different year -- is kind of a non-issue.

A more complicated test case might be something like the first two [i]Superman[/i] movies, which were conceived as a two-part story, and indeed Richard Donner had already directed about half of [i]Superman II[/i] when the producers decided to put the production on hold and focus on finishing the post-production on the first film. After the first film came out, Donner was replaced with Richard Lester, who filmed all the bits that Donner had never gotten around to, kept most of the bits that Donner had shot (including every scene that featured Gene Hackman) and re-shot some other bits, resulting in a film that was partly "made at the same time" and partly not.[/quote]
Thank you for further illustrating the difficulty of defining this category?

[quote name='Peter T Chattaway' date='25 November 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1290741904' post='235589']
Beth: TV miniseries--Let's just say [i]The Decalogue[/i] can be grandfathered in--it's made it onto all the past lists . . .

Pfeh. New management, new rules!

: . . . and other former TV miniseries are just going to have to live with being TV.

Ah, but what about cases where a mini-series has been condensed for the big screen and has earned acclaim there, as with [i]Das Boot[/i] (a 6-hour mini-series that was condensed to 2 hours in the '80s and 3 hours in the '90s) or some of Ingmar Bergman's films (such as [i]Fanny and Alexander[/i], which is on the current A&F Top 100)?
[/quote]
All right, if we're going to have new rules--anything that began on TV is now "TV" and may now serve to raise the level of television for the soon to be announced A&F top 100 television shows/series/episodes. I don't care if it once appeared on the big screen in some form or another. So has [url="http://uncoolkids.com/buffy/"][i]Buffy[/i] 6.7 "Once More, with Feeling[/url], but I'm not going to suggest that it should be considered a "film."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Trilogies are complicated and I agree with a case-by-case basis, especially since there are trilogies that were designed to be a whole film together. Polanski's community trilogy (The Tenant, Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby) is a good example of a trilogy that I would say SHOULD NOT be included as a trilogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='BethR' date='29 November 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1291079060' post='235742']All right, if we're going to have new rules--anything that began on TV is now "TV" and may now serve to raise the level of television for the soon to be announced A&F top 100 television shows/series/episodes. I don't care if it once appeared on the big screen in some form or another. So has [url="http://uncoolkids.com/buffy/"][i]Buffy[/i] 6.7 "Once More, with Feeling[/url], but I'm not going to suggest that it should be considered a "film."[/quote]

To which I'd rather see the exact opposite. If it's been on the big screen, even once, then it [i]can [/i]qualify, but that certainly doesn't make it qualify.

Not to be difficult or anything... :) But that's just how I see it. Nobody is going to nominate [i]Buffy[/i] for this list. But if people begin arguing about the origins of [i]The Decalogue[/i], and why it shouldn't qualify for the list, then we begin losing the very things we should be preserving.

Not to mention the fact that the entire forum is "Film." The qualifying factor should be whether it was seen in a theater, not whether it was made for or played on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Persona wrote:
: To which I'd rather see the exact opposite. If it's been on the big screen, even once, then it [i]can [/i]qualify, but that certainly doesn't make it qualify.

So if, say, the musical episode of [i]Buffy[/i] has been shown on the big screen as part of some sing-along event, it would qualify as "Film" rather than "TV", then? I dunno...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I think we're overthinking this. I'd argue for case-by-case basis.

If someone wants to nominate a TV episode, let them--but they'd have to make a strong case to get it to make it in the list. I think there's a sense that the structure of a self-contained work (even a long one, like the [i]Dekalog[/i] which I still need to see--10 hours! In Polish?!--) lends it to greater consideration in a list such as this than does an episode in a multi-year series (say, "The Constant" on [i]Lost[/i]--one of the best TV episodes I've ever seen, but still somehow less than something such as (attempting to ID a commericial cinematic alternative) [i]The Matrix[/i].)

My point being that if a tv ep is going to make this list, it's going to be extraordinarily unique television. Edited by Buckeye Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Echoing Buckeye, I say let anyone nominate whatever they please, in whatever form they please, and likewise let the community strike down whatever [i]it[/i] pleases. Let the nominator bear whatever onus of persuasion they believe their nomination requires. No doubt this approach will have its downsides, but I think it is sane. Saner, at least, than chasing down the rabbithole after unimpeachable definitions of "film" versus "TV." Edited by du Garbandier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"Unimpeachable"? I don't think anyone's looking for philosophical purity here. Just methodological consistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Surely the most consistent method is to trust the community to reveal its understanding through its choices. Otherwise we will become mired in mind-numbing divagations on hypothetical complexities. The distinction between television and film really is an interesting topic, but there is no need to plow that particular field here when a much less complicated option exists. Edited by du Garbandier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

du Garbandier wrote:
: Surely the most consistent method is to trust the community to reveal its understanding through its choices.

Not if the community's understanding is inconsistent, no.

: Otherwise we will become mired in mind-numbing divagations on hypothetical complexities.

I'm not sure if you're saying that we should make up the rules as we go or that we should have no rules at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I'm saying that we should have no rules automatically disqualifying TV from consideration. Nominate at will. Edited by Buckeye Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Generally speaking, a community list that discloses whatever inconsistencies may obtain within that community's understanding will be more interesting than the list that tries to eliminate such inconsistencies as part of its voting procedure. Edited by du Garbandier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Buckeye Jones wrote:
: I'm saying that we should have no rules automatically disqualifying TV from consideration. Nominate at will.

Nah, we need more definition than that. You might just as well say that books and videogames should also be eligible for the Top 100 list. It's supposed to be a list of the 100 best FILMS. So we need to have a sense of what makes something a film and what makes something not-a-film.

I agree that we shouldn't disqualify e.g. [i]Fanny & Alexander[/i] simply because it was originally made for TV. But I think it would be a huge mistake to nominate e.g. the 6th season of [i]The Simpsons[/i]. Mini-series fall somewhere in-between those extremes, but fall they do, and thus we need to draw the lines somewhere.

du Garbandier wrote:
: Generally speaking, a community list that discloses whatever inconsistencies may obtain within that community's understanding will be more interesting than the list that tries to eliminate such inconsistencies as part of its voting procedure.

I'm not sure that that's the sort of "interesting" we're going for. You might just as well object to the proposed rules re: limits on how many films a director can have on the list, or limits on how old a film has to be to be considered for this list. I think simply having an eclectic list of films (it WILL be fairly eclectic, yes?) is "interesting" enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

[quote name='Peter T Chattaway' date='30 November 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1291163347' post='235837']
Buckeye Jones wrote:
: I'm saying that we should have no rules automatically disqualifying TV from consideration. Nominate at will.

Nah, we need more definition than that. You might just as well say that books and videogames should also be eligible for the Top 100 list. It's supposed to be a list of the 100 best FILMS. So we need to have a sense of what makes something a film and what makes something not-a-film.
[/quote]

I definitely understand what you are saying, Peter. But that definition is necessary only if we distrust the community to the extent that we suspect it will put on the List a plethora of blatantly non-film materials. The line between films and books is not nearly as porous and complex as that between films and television (a closer--though not complete--analogy to the latter relationship would be between books and e-books). If some rogue nominator nominates the Oxford English Dictionary, or the Oxford English Dictionary video game for that matter (coming soon, I promise), let them do so and withstand the coals of just derision that certainly would be heaped upon them in consequence.

If the worry is about too many zany nominations, then require a simple Seconding or Thirding of nominations. In other words, I say build into the voting process as much stress as possible on the community's prerogative to consider whatever it wants to consider, and trust that people will not be stupid about it. In cases where the lines are blurred, let voters decide in voting how much that blurring should factor in deserving or not deserving a place on the list. In group decisions and procedures, simplicity should prevail wherever possible. Since Dekalog has already been on the list so consistently, why not simply let that stand as precedent and allow any future Dekalogs to win their spot in the same fashion? Edited by du Garbandier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

At issue here, I think, is a difference in deeply ingrained personality types. There are those who absolutely have to have things defined clearly. Others are more comfortable with fuzziness, indeed even revel in more options that are opened with such "freedom". The nature of the community is that we will never agree on the appropriateness of clear rules, let alone the rules themselves. FWIW, I'm in the fuzzy camp, but understand for the sake of the overall good that there will have to be some rules. I'm glad the Image people will be in charge of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='du Garbandier' date='30 November 2010 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1291170107' post='235840']
[quote name='Peter T Chattaway' date='30 November 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1291163347' post='235837']
Buckeye Jones wrote:
: I'm saying that we should have no rules automatically disqualifying TV from consideration. Nominate at will.

Nah, we need more definition than that. You might just as well say that books and videogames should also be eligible for the Top 100 list. It's supposed to be a list of the 100 best FILMS. So we need to have a sense of what makes something a film and what makes something not-a-film.
[/quote]

I definitely understand what you are saying, Peter. But that definition is necessary only if we distrust the community to the extent that we suspect it will put on the List a plethora of blatantly non-film materials. The line between films and books is not nearly as porous and complex as that between films and television (a closer--though not complete--analogy to the latter relationship would be between books and e-books). If some rogue nominator nominates the Oxford English Dictionary, or the Oxford English Dictionary video game for that matter (coming soon, I promise), let them do so and withstand the coals of just derision that certainly would be heaped upon them in consequence.

If the worry is about too many zany nominations, then require a simple Seconding or Thirding of nominations. In other words, I say build into the voting process as much stress as possible on the community's prerogative to consider whatever it wants to consider, and trust that people will not be stupid about it. In cases where the lines are blurred, let voters decide in voting how much that blurring should factor in deserving or not deserving a place on the list. In group decisions and procedures, simplicity should prevail wherever possible. Since Dekalog has already been on the list so consistently, why not simply let that stand as precedent and allow any future Dekalogs to win their spot in the same fashion?
[/quote]

What du Garbandier said. If I recall, this sort of process was more or less how [i]Dekalog[/i] and [i]Fanny & Alexander[/i] (for example) were sucessfully nominated and/or listed in the past. It's not really a science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0