The Lists Project

[bunuelian]

Being released separately, a year apart, ought to give them status as separate films. And anyway, is it really that hard to distinguish between them as films?

The real question is whether the theatrical or extended versions are to be considered . . .

[Michael]

The real question is whether the theatrical or extended versions are to be considered . . .

You better be kidding.

[scotty]

I raise the issue because a) the source material was conceived as a single book and split up at publishers' insistence, b) the primary filming for all three was done during a single shoot (there was no question about whether all three would be released; this was really more the case with Star Wars) c) Jackson himself considers it one long film.

I'm really not a LOTR geek. Just wanted to see what the ruling would be.

[Michael]

scotty, I totally understand your point however does that mean we also have to treat Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Kill Bill Vol. 2 as one film because that was how Tarantino originally conceived before Miramax ordered him to split the film in half? Or how about Matrix 2 and Matrix 3? They were made at the same time (to save the cost) so should we treat both film as one? I don't think so.

I have a friend who adores The Fellowship of The Ring but finds The Two Towers painfully mediocre. I don't get this but that's how it goes. My point is: all of those films were released separately and at different times so lets treat them in the same manner - separately.

[zedz]

Now for the 2000s list, the rules and the format remain the same. List the top 50 films and send it to me by December 31st.

Actually, I'm opposed to this for several reasons:

1) Timeframe - For those of us who aren't just writing down titles from the shelves of the local Blockbuster, it's a fair amount of work to, first of all, recollect the thousands of films involved and, second, to obtain or resee key films. Personally, one of the major benefits of this project is that it offers me the opportunity to revisit, or see for the first time, lots of great films. Making the list is only a small part of the pleasure (and reading the results is often no pleasure at all!) Rushing the process through defeats the whole purpose of the exercise and is likely to make for even lazier lists.

2) Reiterations - If we're going to repeat the lists process from the beginning, then the presumable point of doing so is to track changes in recommendation patterns (or get the opportunity to champion newly-discovered gems). As the leading factor in people's changing tastes will be the opportunities they've had to see more films, the less time there is between each iteration of the process, the more redundant those iterations are going to be. And if this year's seventies list looks pretty much the same as last year's, I doubt many people are going to be bothered contributing to next year's.

3) December - In this instance, end of December seems a particularly bad time. I daresay most forum members will have other priorities at that time of the year, and we've already got one mass vote happening at that time anyway.

My preference would be to hold the list votes quarterly: this provides plenty of time to do some targetted film-watching (and order and receive titles you want to catch up on) and would provide a good couple of years between successive versions of the same lists. Who knows what treasures might be released in the interim?

[denti alligator]

I agree with zedz.

I also think we ought to skip the "best films of all time list," but I seem to be alone in wanting to avoid such a list.

[zedz]

I also think we ought to skip the "best films of all time list," but I seem to be alone in wanting to avoid such a list.

You're not alone. I'll probably be sitting it out, but it's no skin off my nose if everyone else wants to do it.

[Michael]

What I was hoping for was to wrap up the Project entirely by the end of the year and start the new round next year. I was also planning to stretch it out, like say 3 or 4 months for every decade instead of rushing through it.

[zedz]

What I was hoping for was to wrap up the Project entirely by the end of the year and start the new round next year. I was also planning to stretch it out, like say 3 or 4 months for every decade instead of rushing through it.

Oh, in that case I don't have any strong objections. I'll just have to apply myself to recovering recent memories over the next couple of weeks!

[Michael]

The new deadline date for the 2000s list is January 31st. When we start the new round next year, you will have plenty of time to vote - about 3 to 4 months for every decade.

[Kambei]

does that mean we also have to treat Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Kill Bill Vol. 2 as one film because that was how Tarantino originally conceived before Miramax ordered him to split the film in half? Or how about Matrix 2 and Matrix 3? They were made at the same time (to save the cost) so should we treat both film as one? I don't think so.

I have a friend who adores The Fellowship of The Ring but finds The Two Towers painfully mediocre. I don't get this but that's how it goes. My point is: all of those films were released separately and at different times so lets treat them in the same manner - separately.

I think your points are valid, Michael--i'm not sure how i feel about Kill Bill as one movie (and I hope no one is voting for The Matrix sequels!).

However, I'm not sure how this is different from Ivan the Terrible being split in half by Stalin's refusal to allow part II to be seen or that each part of the Dekalog has a separate subtitle and was originally shown on t.v. on different days. If people find one part weaker than another, then maybe that's a flaw in the movie that should be taken into account when rating.

I'll gladly vote in whatever way we decide, just thought it was inconsistent with what we've done in the past, and the rules on page one of this thread...

As i'm a Canadian with voting on the brain, if we are being democratic about this, i place my vote for LOTR as one film! (maybe that makes me a federalist? Down with separatism!)

[backstreetsbackalright]

I'm with Michael: three separate films. Yes, it was an intended trilogy, but we saw them separately, we compared them to one another, they were nominated for awards separately. Yes, a trilogy; but that means three films. Kinda like the Three Colors trilogy, which we already voted for separately, and which probably would've moved further up the list if considered a whole.

We start making exceptions like this and we'll hafta qualify all six Star Wars films as a single film, based on Lucas's claims that he planned Eps. 1-3 from the get-go....

[kieslowski_67]

I'm with Michael: three separate films. Yes, it was an intended trilogy, but we saw them separately, we compared them to one another, they were nominated for awards separately. Yes, a trilogy; but that means three films. Kinda like the Three Colors trilogy, which we already voted for separately, and which probably would've moved further up the list if considered a whole.

We start making exceptions like this and we'll hafta qualify all six Star Wars films as a single film, based on Lucas's claims that he planned Eps. 1-3 from the get-go....

I beg to differ. Since "Sight and Sound" can group "Godfather I" and "Godfather II" as one single entry, I don't really see why we cannot group "Kill Bill" I and II together since they are like two parts of one movie. Same goes for "Lord of the rings" trilogy.

[toiletduck!]

Because we're not Sight and Sound: if you want to start naming other published lists, there are just as many that regarded the Godfathers separately. Note that we did as well...

-Toilet Dcuk

[Michael]

kambei, Dekalog was released as a whole, not in parts theatrically here in the US - at least in NYC from my experience.

[backstreetsbackalright]

I beg to differ. Since "Sight and Sound" can group "Godfather I" and "Godfather II" as one single entry, I don't really see why we cannot group "Kill Bill" I and II together since they are like two parts of one movie. Same goes for "Lord of the rings" trilogy.

Sure, that's very true. But Criterionforum's List Project did not lump the Godfathers together.

[zedz]

I beg to differ. Since "Sight and Sound" can group "Godfather I" and "Godfather II" as one single entry, I don't really see why we cannot group "Kill Bill" I and II together since they are like two parts of one movie. Same goes for "Lord of the rings" trilogy.

Sure, that's very true. But Criterionforum's List Project did not lump the Godfathers together.

This Lord of the Rings discussion seems to have been sidetracked into a Kill Bill discussion. According to the Rules -

4. Serials will be counted as one film. Films like Ivan the Terrible and Die Niebelungen will be considered one film. Trilogies such as the Apu Trilogy, the Godfather trilogy, and the Three Colors trilogy will be counted as three different films, and must be separated as such.

- Kill Bill can be voted on as a single film, whereas LotR has to be voted on as three. Hence the individual Godfathers situation was a function of the existence of Part III, and if Coppola had left well enough alone, we'd have been obliged to vote for the two as a single unit. Shall we leave it at that? (I'm so glad that I don't have to worry about voting for any of them!)

[Michael]

For the 2000s list:

Lord of the Rings: each one of the three films is to be voted separately.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 are counted as one film.

The Matrix: see Lord of the Rings.

Deadline date: January 31st.

[Andre Jurieu]

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 are counted as one film.

I'm unclear why this decision was made. Tarantino decided to split his narrative into two films. This was not a creative decision that was forced upon him, even if some believe Harvey to be the same as Stalin. Personally I see a fairly big difference in quality between Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. One film would definitely make my Top 50 of the 2000s, while the other might not.

[pauling]

Just out of curiosity, which one would make your list?

[Andre Jurieu]

Just out of curiosity, which one would make your list?

I'm not really going to get into the details or specifics (and I'm purposely going to remain vague), but I found the blurring of gender roles (it is the most sexual film within Tarantino's brief career - though I doubt he will ever be able to direct a decent sex-scene) in one far more interesting than the overly conventional maternal instincts of the other. Plus, one is composed of solid scenes throughout, while the other feels like peaks and valleys.

[backstreetsbackalright]

even if some believe Harvey to be the same as Stalin.

For the record, I do.

[Michael]

I'm confused. I thought that Tarantino originally made Kill Bill as one film and Miramax ordered him to cut the film in half because it was too long. I could be wrong.

I don't see anything wrong with voting Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 separately. Both films are different in many ways and actually I prefer one a lot more than the other.

Can we all agree on voting Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 as separate films?

[Andre Jurieu]

I'm confused. I thought that Tarantino originally made Kill Bill as one film and Miramax ordered him to cut the film in half because it was too long.

He did originally create it as one film and he will probably release it on DVD as one film someday (he did screen the complete film at Cannes), but the decision to release it in two "volumes" was a mutual decision. Tarantino did not feel his "artistic vision" or "creative choices" had been undermined by the suggestion from Miramax. This isn't an instance of a director battling with "money-hungry executives" and having to compromise his art.

[flyonthewall2983]

I'm just guessing on this, but I don't see how it could be released as one film on DVD. Both films combined are over four hours long I believe, and I think the longest you can put on one disc is a little over 3 hours. I'm fine with voting it as one film, btw. I just wish Leone did this with Once Upon A Time In America back in '84, putting out the 6-hour version he was ultimately happy with before the studio forced him to cut more time out.