criterionforum.org

Sure, why not. Can we have a record somewhere of all the original Orphans, though?

That's just what I was in the process of posting...

I'm OK with the way things are now. But whatever gets decided, it would be cool to find out what turned out to be people's orphans in the initial top 50s.

domino harvey wrote:Can we have a record somewhere of all the original Orphans, though?

Of course.

I'm fine with it. Would you then post the list of orphans Monday (along with the err... unborn? that none voted for), and wait till later to post a full list?

Yeah, tomorrow I would make it clear which films had received zero votes, only one vote, and more than that (but I would not disclose how well the multiple vote films had fared beyond that). I would then PM each of you to tell you how many more titles you can add to your list. Then let's say I would give everyone until Wednesday to respond to me, at which point I would publish final results. (Though I wouldn't wait that long to publish results if everyone got back to me right away.)

Sounds good. Would it be possible at some point to publish the overall result PRIOR to orphans being "revoted"?
Might be interesting to be able to compare before and after (it might not too).
While the re-votes will go on the bottom of the "revoted" lists I imagine there will be different approaches to selecting the replacement films.. if that makes any sense.

The original list will be a weaker indication of contributors' preferences. I don't think it will be of much interest other than to see if enough changes to suggest that this latest idea was actually worth doing. In any case, I'll have a record of it, and will share anything that I consider noteworthy.

Also, feel free to take a week or two off between this and the Pre-20s List dude

I like this new idea. Thanks Swo!

Sounds fun.

I like most of your ideas, swo, but not a fan of this one. It seems contradictory to the spirit of these lists in celebrating the diversity and eclectic nature of our tastes to do a second round of voting and eliminating further films from the running, many of which may not attract a large number of votes primarily because of their accessibility rather than quality.

Part of the beauty of these polls is to see what films on the margins can attract a mini consensus that can spur future interest in them in the future, as in say Ottinger's Dorian Gray. I'd much rather know that one of our members has this in 8th spot on their list, than know that Vertigo is 51st.

I still hope the original results would be published with your original level of detail.

The only thing extra that would interest me is a comprehensive list of who has seen what, but could understand people not having the inclination to submit a checklist of 600+ films.

TMDaines wrote:The only thing extra that would interest me is a comprehensive list of who has seen what, but could understand people not having the inclination to submit a checklist of 600+ films.

No doubt swo remembers what prompted his transition into leading the Decades Lists Project, so I suspect he would never even suggest asking for such a thing. BUT I personally plan to publicly list my unseen titles alongside my full Top 50 and would strongly encourage others planning to share their own full lists to share their full unseen lists too, otherwise just share their top ten and orphans etc like usual. Real talk: Given that we are for once working entirely within a fixed set of titles, I 100% don't give a shit what anyone voted for in this project without also knowing what they haven't seen.

To be clear, I'm 100% in favor of anyone able to make a Top 50 out of these titles submitting their list to swo for tabulation without receiving any kind of inquisition. I just don't care to scroll past it here unless you also cop to your blind spots. I think we can all agree to not mock or question anyone's bonafides based on their MIA titles, it's just a full-disclosure move. But, to reiterate, I'm speaking as an interested participant, not giving orders or directives, and anyone reading this can do whatevs they want (I mean, within reason!)

TMDaines wrote:I like most of your ideas, swo, but not a fan of this one. It seems contradictory to the spirit of these lists in celebrating the diversity and eclectic nature of our tastes to do a second round of voting and eliminating further films from the running, many of which may not attract a large number of votes primarily because of their accessibility rather than quality.

Part of the beauty of these polls is to see what films on the margins can attract a mini consensus that can spur future interest in them in the future, as in say Ottinger's Dorian Gray. I'd much rather know that one of our members has this in 8th spot on their list, than know that Vertigo is 51st.

I still hope the original results would be published with your original level of detail.

The only thing extra that would interest me is a comprehensive list of who has seen what, but could understand people not having the inclination to submit a checklist of 600+ films.

Agreed this was my point somewhat but more eloquently put: we're in effect reducing a finite list to choose from to an even smaller list.
I know its easy for me to say as I'm not doing all the work, what I'd hope to see was a list of films I hadnt seen or perhaps even heard of ranked VERY highly even if only by one or two, yes I know thats still possible, but my concern is that if say 6 or 7 of my "eclectic" choices are eliminated how do I choose replacements from an even smaller starting list?
While I might be prepared to argue that say "lilya 4 ever" is one of the greastest/my favorite all time films ie a film I would go back to again and again if I was given a week to live even above and beyond all the usual suspects like Kane, Tokyo story or even vertigo do I care enough about say "come and see" at 51 to discount the import and significance of a citizan kane sufficently to allow "come and see" to leapfrog it in my list.

Without wanting to put too much store in all this or burden swo with even more work for someone already going above and beyond I'd hoped to get a sense of just which non consensus films posters would "die for".

TSPDT and Sight & Sound et al already reflect most of the really important films in the cannon BECAUSE of the relatively high numbers of voters involved, what they dont reflect is how many of those someone/one or two would choose to re-visit if given the proverbial "week to live".

Amongst all the things I'd want to do if I was in that position I wouldn't sit through Satantango or Berlin Alexanderplats or Kane or Vertigo again I'd be reaching for those that still inspire and move me almost as much as breathing, (rather than activate me intellectually) many of which such as raise the red lantern, still life or cinema paradiso etc weren't on the long short list let alone a list abbreviated again by almost half.

Personally I'd be more interested in those outliers "loved" by someone than whether 90% or 91% of respondents managed to fit Citizen Kane somewhere in their top 50 first or second time around.
I suspect its here that I'm likely to find the life changers/gems I passsed over, was too drunk or stoopid to get first or third time around or just didnt invest sufficient time into rather than amongst the consensus/usual suspects.

What I'd find interesting is not "1001 films to see before you die" but what 10 films would you see again if you knew you were going to die... 3 days from now. ie when you're 70 and dying which of your 3 wives do you want to see one last time: the one you still love passionately or the other 2 your family liked or you're "still" married too.

Needless to say I dont have better way to do this and think swo deserves all the kudos for doing it already.

Rant over.

To the two members who expressed doubts, if swo posts a list all of the original orphans in the thread, then we wouldn't lose any information by doing the partial "second round." I think it's worth a try. If for some reason, it doesn't go over well (though I don't see why it wouldn't), then we'll at least then know that this part of the experiment -- and this whole project is an experiment -- didn't work out for next time.

I'll do whatever the group decides, but I just don't see the point of a potential second round of voting. The way the longlist was drawn up has already brought a sensible level of qualification for voting the final list without sifting even further.

Anyway, I still need to submit my ballot at lunchtime, so I'll refrain from commenting further until at least I have participated.

My doubts are relatively minor if swo is able at some point to include a pre "re-vote" top 50 list as well as the final then if there is a difference we;ll see it. Otherwise he's already indicated he'll highlight anything significant so I'm ok either way - just hoping we dont "consensus" this thing to death.

TMDaines wrote:I like most of your ideas, swo, but not a fan of this one. It seems contradictory to the spirit of these lists in celebrating the diversity and eclectic nature of our tastes to do a second round of voting and eliminating further films from the running, many of which may not attract a large number of votes primarily because of their accessibility rather than quality.

Part of the beauty of these polls is to see what films on the margins can attract a mini consensus that can spur future interest in them in the future, as in say Ottinger's Dorian Gray. I'd much rather know that one of our members has this in 8th spot on their list, than know that Vertigo is 51st.

I completely agree with this. Like with any of the previous decade-lists, even a film ending up as an orphan must have created enough passion in someone to have voted for it. And as I participate in this list-making not least to see how my own tastes have evolved over the years, I want to keep my list as uninfluenced by considerations of 'pushing' a certain film as possible.

As a sidenote: while it's lower than the 8th spot, I do have "Dorian Gray" on my list. And it ranks higher than "Vertigo", which is also on my list.

I'm willing to post the films I haven't seen. I didn't join this board during the decades list so I have no gripes about certain things missing, the master list has plenty of great films.

Just out of curiosity, if someone has an orphan top five is there a chance it gets more points than maybe a consensus film that ranked lower for a few people?

TMDaines wrote:...It seems contradictory to the spirit of these lists in celebrating the diversity and eclectic nature of our tastes...

Normally I would agree with this, but this time we are to choose from a Master-List. So the diversity is in all fairness fairly limited this time around.
Add to that: all Original Orphans Lists (OOL™) will be presented in the final tally. And if I understand this correct, no-one is forced to substitute their orphans.

This is the first time I participate in one of these list projects. The reason I'm on board this time is entirely down to the bat-shit-crazy-limited nature of the Master-List.

Just my €2c.
(Sorry if these remarks comes off as unnecessary harsh, my command of the preferred forum language is limited)

It seems like an excellent idea so long as the original statistics are published as well.

feckless boy wrote:Just my €2c.
(Sorry if these remarks comes off as unnecessary harsh, my command of the preferred forum language is limited)

No need to apologise. It's hilarious how both us English and most Americans tie ourselves up in knots in trying to make our speech so indirect and conditional as possible.

JohnShade wrote:Just out of curiosity, if someone has an orphan top five is there a chance it gets more points than maybe a consensus film that ranked lower for a few people?

Possibly, but as on Who's Line is it Anyway?, the points are meaningless for Orphans as it takes two voters placing a film on their list for it to count in any tally. This is how it always was and always will be for List Projects

JohnShade wrote:Just out of curiosity, if someone has an orphan top five is there a chance it gets more points than maybe a consensus film that ranked lower for a few people?

Yes, but it can't make the final list without at least two votes; this is why people's Orphan lists often engender much discussion.

I like the idea, if only because there are indeed other films I would vote for and if my orphan votes are "wasted" then I'm happy to boost a few other films I really think deserve it.

This all-time list is different than the others. A different methodology is thus acceptable.