top 250?
-
enferoui — 19 years ago(October 25, 2006 04:23 PM)
i also dislike the top 250 list. aside from its having an inadequate sense of history, its biggest problem is that there is no way to account for how many votes are coming from users who have actually seen the films in question. but, such is the nature of a democratic approach to lists and awards, among other things.
-
dshortt-1 — 18 years ago(July 19, 2007 05:44 PM)
Interesting analysis, paulklenk, but I've got a couple'o questions.
You say that the top 250 methodology is designed to, " prevent ridiculously popular junk movies like Spiderman " from getting a high rank (above the Godfather!) on the list.
Sorry, but when I take a look at the list, it is stuffed with "ridiculously popular junk movies," as you call them (not sure which ones you refer to, but lets take, for example, Grindhouse). If the intention is as you say, it doesn't seem to be working too well.
Another point you say the ranking is not designed to be an indicator of how "good" a film is. And I've hear different versions, that the list is a ranking of the probability that a view will enjoy a movie, etc.
But the fact is, that voters choose on a scale going from excellent (10) to awful (1). Now, excellent basically means "very good," and when we say something is awful, we usually mean it is "bad."
So, when voters cast their ballots, they at least think, according to the choices presented, that they are indeed voting on how "good" a movie is. Now how the hell do you turn around and say the list isn't a ranking of "goodness," when that's what voters are voting for?
Personally, I accept your statement that the top 250 is not a ranking of best or "good" films at all. However, since that's what people are voting on, it does indeed mean that the list is Bullsh*t. -
KMHall — 19 years ago(July 05, 2006 11:50 PM)
It's best not to take the top 250 too seriously and just understand that it is voted by young adults and people whom haven't had an extremely in-depth grasp of film.
By the way, I loved Army of Shadows and think it would be nice for it to receive the broad admiration is deserves. However, the odds are likely that will never happen. -
fateless — 19 years ago(July 12, 2006 02:54 PM)
I do think that The Top 250 is a mediocre list there are far too many masterpieces left off for trash like "Shawshank."
Even "The Godfather" doesn't merit a #1 placement.
HE GOT COLGATE ON HIS TEETH & REEBOK CLASSICS ON HIS FEET -
TheWanderingFish — 19 years ago(October 23, 2006 10:32 PM)
"Brokeback Mountain" pedestrian? - perhaps. But "Army of Shadows"? I think not.
I too have rated about 450 films and gave this one a ten - a true masterpiece of filmmaking.
Anyways, I'm not as hard on the top 250 as some - I for one thoroughly enjoy films like the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy and the "Star Wars" trilogy, even while I admit that they aren't the "Greatest" films ever made. On the other hand, the list is certainly skewed towards modern American films that appeal to a certain demographic. It includes some of the most well-known international classics like "8 1/2" and "The Seventh Seal", but certainly not enough.
"Or perhaps it's not overrated" -
sausagefactory2010 — 18 years ago(June 17, 2007 03:40 AM)
yes by the way I can see your point in saying how American modernist audiences go for Star Wars and the like however, you have to remember that 81/2, Seventh Seal, I think Fanny and Alexander, Amelie and City of God are up there. You also have to remember that cinema has always been like this. People gave 'Wings' the first ever best picture for God's sake.
I can only conclude that only in places is the list bullsh*t, but in others more formal voters like yourselves also reach through.
I like to call it a representation of different viewsif biased slightly to movie nerds wearing t-shirts who think The GOdfather is the best film ever and think The Exorcist was amazing (hello, William Friedkin, ever heard of a character arc or a small thing called subplot?)