The Lists Project

[Lighthouse]

For the millionth time, we're glad to see people new to the Lists Projects making contributions, but you should really familiarize yourself with the procedure before raising such a tired ruckus.

Tsk, tsk, tsk

[zedz]

It's not official, but it is strongly encouraged that participants continue discussing their choices after the list is announced, particularly their waifs and strays. The list itself is quite possibly the least interesting element of the entire proceedings and I'd much rather hear about the films I've never heard of or had overlooked from their passionate defenders.

And the long-standing (way before my time!) two-vote rule makes perfect sense to me, since the very act of creating a forum list is all about recording consensus choices, and individual passions are best celebrated by individual passion - which is where the orphan defending comes in. I suppose the rule was originally conceived so that people couldn't just bully their unpopular favourite onto the aggregate list by artificially promoting it to the top spot, but in practical terms (maybe not for the more boutique-y genre projects, I don't know) 50 points hasn't been enough to get a film within snorting distance of the final 100 for many years.

Nothing - I wouldn't count Cabeza de Vaca, How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman or Aguirre as westerns, and that's why I can't really think of The New World as one either - though it's certainly a much fuzzier distinction with regard to that film. These films all seem to me part of a distinct 'discovery and exploration' genre.

[Nothing]

What's SQLFest 2011? If I'd known you were extending the deadline, I might've got a couple more viewings in...

Intruiged to know what these unsung high performers are, but I guess we'll now have to wait until tomorrow... Did we ever discusss Heaven's Gate? :-k I'm still convinced that The Searchers will top the list, perhaps followed by Man of the West. Stagecoach will no doubt feature far more prominently than it deserves, folks not seeming to grasp that 'best western' and 'most influential western' are very far from the same thing (I didn't vote for A Fistful of Dollars or The Great Train Robbery either).

We really ought to have a dedicated List Project Rules and Procedures thread to prevent this nonsense in the future.

Lighthouse's comments were far from "nonsense", the 'orphans' rule being very arguably illogical. Particulars aside, why shouldn't newer members be able to contribute to an ongoing debate on such matters? I mean, sure, set up a separate thread for it, that makes sense, but in which case you should be open to new ideas, perhaps holding a poll once or twice a year to see where the current consensus lies, otherwise this is the kind of territorial pissing that ultimately just drives new folks away.

[Mr Sausage]

What's SQLFest 2011? If I'd known you were extending the deadline, I might've got a couple more viewings in...

Board was down for a while due an an SQL error.

We really ought to have a dedicated List Project Rules and Procedures thread to prevent this nonsense in the future.

Lighthouse's comments were far from "nonsense", the 'orphans' rule being very arguably illogical. Particulars aside, why shouldn't newer members be able to contribute to an ongoing debate on such matters? I mean, sure, set up a separate thread for it, that makes sense, but in which case you should be open to new ideas, perhaps holding a poll once or twice a year to see where the current consensus lies, otherwise this is the kind of territorial pissing that ultimately just drives new folks away.

I was thinking more of you when I wrote "nonsense," but anyway, the matter was reopened for discussion by swo17 and no one felt any differently from the last time it was discussed, so no changes will be made. All participants in the Lists Project are directed here if they wish to know the guidelines for participation in the project. Questions and concerns may be placed here. Bitching and moaning should be directed at someone who cares, provided you actually manage to find such a person on this forum.

[PillowRock]

Lighthouse's comments were far from "nonsense", the 'orphans' rule being very arguably illogical. Particulars aside, why shouldn't newer members be able to contribute to an ongoing debate on such matters? I mean, sure, set up a separate thread for it

I took the "nonsense" comment to be referring to taking up large chunks of a movie discussion thread arguing / debating / discussing list voting and tabulation rules (as opposed to keeping that stuff out in separate rules discussion thread). Many people open these threads specifically to read suggestions for and comments about the movies themselves, and as such it can become frustrating to keep seeing more "procedural" posts in these specific threads.

[Matt]

The reason we have the orphans rule (and have had it since the first lists project) is this: because the number of participants in these list projects is relatively small, a single list has a big effect on the final outcome.

Imagine this scenario if we didn't have the orphans rule: You have 20 people participating in a list. One person wants to make sure that his eccentric favorite movie gets placement somewhere on the list, so he puts it at #1, garnering it 50 points. It gets no other votes. Another film that a lot of people like but don't love gets 9 votes at #46, garnering it 45 points. Why should that one person's strategic by mischievous outlier vote get a higher placement over the votes of 9 people? It's not even close to being fair or representative of the shared taste and opinions of the forum, which is what these lists are intended to show. The rule is not illogical or arbitrary in the least if you understand that. It's a pretty common statistical method to discard outliers.

The better option is to try to convince other participants to give your film a chance and to place it on their lists. That was the whole point of swapsies and campaigning for particular films. And when you are the only person to vote for a film, that's when you gripe about it in the Defend Your Darlings, You Sad Pandas! thread.

[Cold Bishop]

The list is nothing more than a MacGuffin. If your favorites don't rank high enough or at all, then fight and argue for them once the list comes out. That's the real purpose of this exercise.

[swo17]

The list is nothing more than a MacGuffin. If your favorites don't rank high enough or at all, then fight and argue for them once the list comes out. That's the real purpose of this exercise.

Better yet, if no one is talking about a film you love during the project, assume the worst and champion it while others have a chance to see it and put it on their lists. I appreciate when people defend their orphans and I take note to see some of them later but I'm a lot more likely to watch something either immediately or within a couple months of the recommendation if you provide an intriguing appraisal of the film while the project is going on.

[matrixschmatrix]

The list is nothing more than a MacGuffin. If your favorites don't rank high enough or at all, then fight and argue for them once the list comes out. That's the real purpose of this exercise.

I've actually been using the most recent noir list as a resource, finding things I had missed and so forth, but it's much more satisfying when I title I find on there has corresponding discussion in the thread- it becomes an annotated list, almost a solid book on the subject by a group of people whose taste I have a good grasp on. So, there is actually some value to the lists even after that particular discussion cycle is over, but it's greatly enhanced if all the entries are mulled over at some point.

[Cold Bishop]

Of course... but I'm speaking about now that the list is done.

I mean, I'm disappointed I didn't take part much in the discussion at all this cycle. I was almost tempted not to turn in a list precisely because I find that part to be largely a headache and a bore. But I'm hoping to make most of the "Defend Your Darling" period precisely because of that. I still don't consider myself finished with the "Noir" project either: I consider the final rankings just a starting point for further exploration.

[Nothing]

Why should that one person's strategic by mischievous outlier vote get a higher placement over the votes of 9 people?

b/c I think you have to trust people to vote honestly and it's fair that a film one contributor rates as their no.1 should rank higher than a film that a few other people stuck at the bottom of their list to fill out the numbers. having said this... the lowest scoring film on the westerns list had 49 points, so I guess this debate is pretty much irrelevent anyhow.

[swo17]

Films toward the bottom of someone's list shouldn't just be filler though. (If they are, that person would be advised to watch more qualifying films.) I haven't tried to prepare a list for one of the genre products yet, and maybe it's harder to come up with 50 films you love there, but in the decades lists anyway there always seem to be a handful of films that I adore that I just can't make room for. Also, if you haven't already, please read the last section of this as well, which goes into some of the reasoning behind the orphan rule.

[Nothing]

Depends on how closely you ration your 'love', doesn't it! I've seen hundreds of westerns and would recommend every film I voted for (and yes, a few had to be left out) - but wouldn't claim to 'adore' anything outside of my Top 10 really.

So... How about doing a 'Best Television' List (with, perhaps, a 'no mini-series' rule!)?

[matrixschmatrix]

That seems like it would be a reasonable suggestion for the next opening in the genre cycle (which doesn't quite fit, but it's obviously closer than decades, and I can't see a third parallel list project going at any given time)

[Cold Bishop]

We were all hankering to do a Horror list the last go-around, so I'd imagine that's still the plan.

Television is an idea, but I'd imagine it'll be a headache to sort out the terms.

Then again, other than Science Fiction perhaps, what other genre is easily defined and prosperous enough a candidate that it can be done without a lengthy argument and discussion about its definition? Documentary could be done rather easily because its a completely different format. Ditto Animation. I guess Comedy is obvious, but that seems too broad. We could narrow it down to Romantic Comedies, but even that requires a definition to separate it out from comedies with a romantic subplot. Dittio Romantic Dramas, or just a general Romance list. Action list would require a definition, even though I think it be easier to forge one there than those others. I'd love to do a Neo-Noir list, or even find a way to do a non-noir Crime Film list (which would again require a consensus on its definition). Ranking War Films? I'd almost feel like Phil Hartman in Small Soldiers, exclaiming "I think World War II was my favorite war." And I could go on...

[matrixschmatrix]

Action? Fantasy (though that might be hard to distinguish from sci fi)? We've already mentioned animation, that would be an exciting one for me.

Would something like 'period pieces' or 'literary adaptations' work, or would we want to keep a narrower definition of genre?

[colinr0380]

That seems like it would be a reasonable suggestion for the next opening in the genre cycle (which doesn't quite fit, but it's obviously closer than decades, and I can't see a third parallel list project going at any given time)

Three parallel list projects are currently going on: the decades one, the genre one and the Alternative Oscars one.

[domino harvey]

Alternate Oscars List is the uncompleted graduate thesis of the forum

[knives]

We were all hankering to do a Horror list the last go-around, so I'd imagine that's still the plan.

Television is an idea, but I'd imagine it'll be a headache to sort out the terms.

Then again, other than Science Fiction perhaps, what other genre is easily defined and prosperous enough a candidate that it can be done without a lengthy argument and discussion about its definition? Documentary could be done rather easily because its a completely different format. Ditto Animation. I guess Comedy is obvious, but that seems too broad. We could narrow it down to Romantic Comedies, but even that requires a definition to separate it out from comedies with a romantic subplot. Dittio Romantic Dramas, or just a general Romance list. Action list would require a definition, even though I think it be easier to forge one there than those others. I'd love to do a Neo-Noir list, or even find a way to do a non-noir Crime Film list (which would again require a consensus on its definition). Ranking War Films? I'd almost feel like Phil Hartman in Small Soldiers, exclaiming "I think World War II was my favorite war." And I could go on...

Singin' the Rain is totes Sci-Fi.

[Mr Sausage]

There is also the possibility, once the genre-project is done, of doing a List project by country.

[PillowRock]

Following the sub-thread of making a case for what all one considers to be a musical:
Intuitively (to me), anything where a sufficiently large amount of the film's focus is musical *performance* (as distinct from bio-pics about musicians, which typically do not focus much at all on the performance) is inherently a "musical film". That is the definition that makes sense to me. It seems to me that separating out "operatic tradition" vs "American musical theater" vs "ballet" is a matter of separating sub-genres of "musical films" (granted some of them are much larger than others). To me, it doesn't matter whether that musical performance is singing or dancing or even instrumental (though that is sufficiently rare that I'm having trouble coming with a good example right now), they would be "musical films".

I think the semantics here are problematic, since "a musical film" (e.g. documentary on the construction of a piano, Fischinger abstraction, fully scored Hollywood melodrama) is not the same thing as "a musical", which is a recognised, if disputable, genre. It's like defining "a western" as any film in which the action takes place to the west of some other place, or an action movie as a film in which somebody or something moves (e.g. La Jetee!).

Allow me to rephrase, because all of the things in your parenthetic list are absolutely *not* what I was talking about.

Staying within the realm of narrative feature films (since that is the definition of what this list is for), if a sufficient "critical mass" (the exact level TBD, and a bit subjective) of the film is the foreground depiction (not "background music" or "scoring") of musical performance (including dance) then the movie is a "musical". What might be described as "cinematic extension of American musical theater" is a sub-genre of it, albeit the largest one. Movies, such as those listed in my previous post, that have sufficient foreground musical performance but grow more from pre-cinematic traditions other than Broadway are still "musicals" in my view. Where I think the semantic problem comes in is that within the world of American theater, the phrase "American musical theater" tended to be shortened to "musical" because both the "American" and the "theater" were redundant to the context. This created what computer scientists call an "overloaded symbol": more than one possible meaning depending on context. Movie operettas such as The Mikado or Flamenco ballets such as Blood Wedding aren't part of the cinematic-Broadway sub-genre, but they are still "musicals" and the broadly worded definition of the first post says nothing about limiting the list to particular sub-genres.

To me this seems a bit like hearing some people claim that *only* "space opera" counts as "science fiction", when it is really just the most commonly visible sub-genre. Frankenstein is science fiction; it's just not in the same sub-genre as Star Trek.

[knives]

Space Opera isn't sci-fi though.

[swo17]

Close enough.

[knives]

See, even television's got my back on this stuff.

[matrixschmatrix]

If it's got spaceships, it's sci fi. Nobody said it had to be plausible