Jump to content


Photo

Top100 Nominating Process: Please vote by November 28


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
30 replies to this topic

Poll: Top100 Nominating Process: Please vote by November 28 (28 member(s) have cast votes)

Should we allow short films to be nominated?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Should we require a nomination to be seconded before appearing on the ballot?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Should we make [some past date] the cutoff release date for nominations?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Should we limit the number of times a director can appear on the Top 100?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Should we nominate trilogies or series as one film?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

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?)

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Should we use a scale of 1-10 instead of 1 to 5?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote

#21 du Garbandier

du Garbandier

    Dull in a new way

  • Member
  • 356 posts

Posted 30 November 2010 - 11:24 AM

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, 30 November 2010 - 11:25 AM.


#22 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,825 posts

Posted 30 November 2010 - 07:29 PM

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. Fanny & Alexander 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 The Simpsons. 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.

#23 du Garbandier

du Garbandier

    Dull in a new way

  • Member
  • 356 posts

Posted 30 November 2010 - 09:21 PM

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 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, 30 November 2010 - 09:24 PM.


#24 Darrel Manson

Darrel Manson

    Detached Existential INFP Dreamer-Minstrel Redux

  • Member
  • 6,681 posts

Posted 30 November 2010 - 10:28 PM

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.

#25 BethR

BethR

    Getting medieval on media

  • Member
  • 2,859 posts

Posted 30 November 2010 - 10:48 PM


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 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?


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

#26 Overstreet

Overstreet

    Sometimes, there's a man.

  • Member
  • 17,298 posts

Posted 30 November 2010 - 10:57 PM

My thoughts keep evolving on this subject, but I'm really liking what Buckeye and du Garbandier are saying.

Here's why: The world of art and entertainment is changing so fast that soon the borderlines will become so blurry as to be impossible to declare. Great films are already showing up on TV before they show up on the big screen. TV movies are, these days, sometimes far more substantial than big-screen films. I'm reading about simultaneous big-screen/DVD/Netflix releases.

This is a community that wants to celebrate great filmmaking, and the proliferation of ways to watch a movie, or places to find one, is happening so fast that we're going to end up cutting off great sources of filmmaking if we build walls between the theatrical distribution and television. In ten years, I'd venture to guess, such distinctions will be history.

I think we can, for now, distinguish between a video game and a movie: One has an audience, one invites the audience to participate and influence the outcome.

But beyond that, I like the idea of Seconding (and even Thirding) as ways to "clear" any particular entity for the final list. Whether we find it on TV or in a theater. And the same goes for a series: Let the community decide, case by case, whether a trilogy is one thing in three pieces, or three distinct things. Surely there's a difference between Che, Part 1 and Part 2 and, say, Trois Couleurs.

#27 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,825 posts

Posted 01 December 2010 - 01:08 PM

du Garbandier wrote:
: 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).

Not the best analogy, as the only difference between the two is whether the text is printed with ink or with pixels. It's a difference of distribution, but not of creative output. Television, on the other hand, is an entirely different MEDIUM than film, which encourages entirely different forms of storytelling and/or filmmaking, thus it needs to be held to a different standard than film.

TV-movies like Steven Spielberg's Duel (which was released theatrically in Europe) or mini-series such as Fanny & Alexander (which was condensed for theatrical release) are still reasonably film-ish because they tend to be united, discrete works of art, whereas a show like The Simpsons is an open-ended thing that has cranked out nearly 400 episodes so far, with different writers and directors taking things all over the place (and sometimes explicitly, even deliberately, contradicting each other).

Dekalog is tolerable for a list such as ours because, despite being ten hours long, it IS a coherent, integrated work of art that DOES reflect the vision of a single director and his team. Likewise, The Lord of the Rings is basically just one ten-hour movie divided into three parts, though all of them are united by the vision of a single director and his team. (Or, if we want to stick to a Kieslowskian example of a trilogy that stands as a single united work, there is of course the Three Colours trilogy.)

I don't get the feeling that anyone seriously disputes the appropriateness of films that were originally made for TV. But I think how we answer this question will have implications for how we answer the question of movie trilogies etc. I think a consistent principle can be applied to both scenarios. And I think having a consistent principle is better than having no principle at all.

: 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?

Ah, but in order for there to BE a precedent, we have to establish what we are setting a precedent FOR. In order for there to BE a "future Dekalog", the future Dekalog must be CONSISTENT with the existing Dekalog as far as eligibility for the list is concerned.

I mean, if just doing what we've always done is the rationale you're applying here, then we might as well not set limits on the number of films per director, and we might as well not split up trilogies, or whatever. But the whole POINT of this thread and others like it is to RETHINK what we have done, and to adjust our guidelines and our methodology accordingly.

Overstreet wrote:
: TV movies are, these days, sometimes far more substantial than big-screen films.

Really? I hear this sort of claim frequently, but never about TV movies. What I DO hear about is TV SERIES, whether it's Boardwalk Empire or Battlestar Galactica or The Sopranos or whatever. And yes, there IS a difference between a "movie" and a "series", especially an open-ended one.

: I'm reading about simultaneous big-screen/DVD/Netflix releases.

This is pretty much a non-issue if we're only considering films that are at least a couple years old.

: . . . we're going to end up cutting off great sources of filmmaking if we build walls between the theatrical distribution and television.

I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that, either. This ISN'T about distribution models.

: Let the community decide, case by case, whether a trilogy is one thing in three pieces, or three distinct things.

No, this is not the sort of thing that should be done on an ad hoc basis. We need a consistent principle -- and "judges", if you will, who apply that principle consistently -- so that we don't have arguments like this every time a mini-series or multi-part movie gets nominated.

: Surely there's a difference between Che, Part 1 and Part 2 and, say, Trois Couleurs.

Actually, no, there isn't. For one thing, there is no such thing as Che, Part 1 or Che, Part 2. There is Che: The Argentine and Che: Guerrilla.1 As with Three Colours, so with Che: the project was always intended to have multiple parts. A better example for the point you're trying to make would be something like Kill Bill, which didn't become two films until very late in post-production, at which point all the actors' contracts had to be renegotiated (even though they had long since finished shooting their parts!). But even there, I would say Kill Bill has a narrative and thematic integrity that is on par with that of Three Colours.

1Oh, wait, apparently the titles were dumbed down for American release... but the original titles stayed for the films' international release. Well, that's an interesting footnote, but it's still just a footnote.

#28 Persona

Persona

    You said you'd wait... 'Til the end of the world.

  • Member
  • 7,463 posts

Posted 05 December 2010 - 07:57 AM

So since we've apparently decided on the "three is enough" rule, can we now address the Bergman situation? I personally believe it would be best to decide on this, maybe even vote on it, away from the Top 100 Vote and away from the grandfathering of the old t100. Right now if we were to take only the top three Bergmans on the current list, we'd have The Seventh Seal, Wild Strawberries and Winter Light. No Through a Glass Darkly, no Cries and Whispers, no Fanny and Alexander, no The Sacrifice. I haven't developed a strong opinion on which three I'd really like to end up with, but imagine with the many opinions already here, not everyone will be satisfied without figuring this out ahead of time.

#29 Ryan H.

Ryan H.

    Riding the crest of a wave breaking just west of Hollywood

  • Member
  • 5,505 posts

Posted 05 December 2010 - 01:09 PM

Right now if we were to take only the top three Bergmans on the current list, we'd have The Seventh Seal, Wild Strawberries and Winter Light.

Fine by me.

I don't think we should distinguish any filmmakers for preferential treatment. What gets the highest votes gets in, no matter who directed it.

Edited by Ryan H., 05 December 2010 - 01:10 PM.


#30 Persona

Persona

    You said you'd wait... 'Til the end of the world.

  • Member
  • 7,463 posts

Posted 05 December 2010 - 01:15 PM

I guess some of the question is this: are we only allowing three nominations per director? Just because they are nominated doesn't necessarily mean they make the t100. But if we nominate all seven, then we only go with the top three no matter how high the others might end up on a new list? Either system has issues.

#31 Ryan H.

Ryan H.

    Riding the crest of a wave breaking just west of Hollywood

  • Member
  • 5,505 posts

Posted 05 December 2010 - 01:17 PM

I guess some of the question is this: are we only allowing three nominations per director?

No. You can have as many nominations as you like.

But if we nominate all seven, then we only go with the top three no matter how high the others might end up on a new list?

Yup. That's how it's been decided this time out.

Edited by Ryan H., 05 December 2010 - 01:17 PM.