|
|
#31
10-20-2005, 05:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 100 Great Films
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] because, really, you could fill up 80% of the list w/ Scorsese/Spielberg/Bergman/Kurosawa/Trauffaut/Fellini/Allen/Kubrick, etc, but what would be the point in that? [/ QUOTE ] To make a list of the 100 Greatest Films of the 20th Century? GoT [/ QUOTE ] but like you said, it'll differ by taste anyway, so maybe you take out A Clockwork Orange and replace it with something like the Decalogue, that may get overlooked otherwise (even though it's one of the all-time greats). in the end, the difference between 3 kubrick and 2 is minimal, but leaving out Kieslowski would be horrible. i'm quite sure around film #80 i'll be appreciating the variety [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] 
|
|
#32
10-20-2005, 05:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 Great Films
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] because, really, you could fill up 80% of the list w/ Scorsese/Spielberg/Bergman/Kurosawa/Trauffaut/Fellini/Allen/Kubrick, etc, but what would be the point in that? [/ QUOTE ] To make a list of the 100 Greatest Films of the 20th Century? GoT [/ QUOTE ] but like you said, it'll differ by taste anyway, so maybe you take out A Clockwork Orange and replace it with something like the Decalogue, that may get overlooked otherwise (even though it's one of the all-time greats). in the end, the difference between 3 kubrick and 2 is minimal, but leaving out Kieslowski would be horrible. i'm quite sure around film #80 i'll be appreciating the variety [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Sure it'll differ by taste. But if your goal is to make a list of the best 100 films, then make a list of the best 100 films! Don't let a worse one leapfrog over a better one just because that direcctor already has more than one on the list. That's not a "Best 100" list; it's a "here's some diversified films" list. If they really did leave those films off the list because Kurosawa already had two on it, their list has zero cred for two reasons. Ranking those two above Rashomon and Seven Samurai (again, virtually unanimously accepted as two of the best 50 films of all-time) and because that is completely counter-productive to making a "Best 100 Films" list. Call it something else if that's how you're compiling the list. GoT
|
|
#33
10-20-2005, 05:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 Great Films
Guys, let's agree most film lists are retarded or insufficient in some way, but using a set of them to gain some sort of consensus is a raesonable approach to coverage?
You both make good points, and I don't think you are actually disagreeing on the fundamentals. Then let's go bowling or whoring or whatever...
|
|
#35
10-20-2005, 07:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 Great Films
I think we had a huge thread on this list a while back, when it first came out...
I remember writing about what a travesty the list was for omitting Touch of Evil and The Third Man...heh. Anyway...Roger Ebert's list of great movies is much, much better. Will
|
|
#39
10-20-2005, 08:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 Great Films
No 'The Third Man', 'Seven Samurai' or 'Ran'?
|
|
#40
10-20-2005, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 Great Films
[ QUOTE ]
Guys, let's agree most film lists are retarded or insufficient in some way, but using a set of them to gain some sort of consensus is a raesonable approach to coverage? You both make good points, and I don't think you are actually disagreeing on the fundamentals. Then let's go bowling or whoring or whatever... [/ QUOTE ] yeah, i just figure you gotta make a cut somewhere, and for a project like this, i wanted a definitive number (other than the ny times list of 1000, b/c that's too many), and there's obviously gonna be some people left out. i also wanted a list that i didn't have any control over. and it's not like i won't see/haven't seen some of the ommissions anyway. plus, for the article i'm writing, part of the point is to talk about what's missing, etc. yeah, i doubt we dissagree at all. i really wish 'annie hall' was on the list, but what can you do?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
