HTF AFI 100 Challenge Revote Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[george kaplan]

I believe we should use the same cutoff date as the original AFI 100 List, which eliminates any films made after 1996.

Well the AFI list came out 2 years ago. So at that time they thought films from 1996 had enough perspective to be judged. Therefore, if we have a cutoff, I think it should be eliminating films made after 1998, not 1996.

 

[Jay E]

I don't know if this is the right place to post this but I would like to join in the making of the list. I did not participate in the AFI challenge due to the fact that I've seen all the films on the list (one of the benefits of being a one-time video store manager). I think the AFI challenge was a great idea, I applaud any attempts to get people to discover our film history.

I would also agree that a English language/foreign language designation would be best for this new list.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

If you take into account the historical or artistic significance of many films on this list, I will have a difficult time coming up with much more than 10 films to submit for removal. While I did not enjoy some of the films from an entertainment perspective, I can appreciate the reasons why they were placed on the list. Birth Of A Nation is probably the best example, but there are others.

Instead of drawing a line in the sand and stating that the top 25 (or whatever) vote getters for removal will be replaced, I think a film should be considered for removal only if if gets a certain (yet to be determined) percentage of votes for removal. This would indicate that a significant number of participants agreed the film did not belong on "our" list.

Afterwards, the same number of films from a "replacement" list could be added. Now, how to determine that list? There are several fine ideas for this already in the thread.

 

[Brook K]

Scott, I don't think anyone's said that X amount of AFI films will be eliminated.

Through an undetermined method we're going to come up with a list of alternates and then come up with a list of 100 movies picking from the alternate list and the original AFI one.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Like I suggested, I think a simple majority is needed for films coming off and on the list. I see some problems with participants weighting their 25 alternates from 1 - 25 and then assigning 25 points to the first one, 24 for the second and so on down the line. If 5 people list the same film as their top alternate but doesn't get mentioned by the other 20 participants, that gives that film an automatic 125 points. But another film that gets mentioned consistently at the bottom of the list by 10 or more participants but end up only getting 100 points might be out of contention. I'm all for keeping things simple by going with the top vote getters and a simple majority.

I suggest giving each possible submitted 25 films equal weighting. From there select the top 50 possible alternates. Everyone is then asked to watch all 50 after which a revote is taken with the films getting the majority votes as the possible final replacements.

~Edwin

 

[george kaplan]

Just to be clear, there's no way we're going to be able to come up with a completely fair voting scheme (there's even a mathematical proof of this called Arrow's Impossibility Theorem). We're just going to have to pick a method and live with it.
Assume we have 10 voters. If we weight the votes, and only 1 person selects movie X at 1st place, and all 10 select movie Y at 25th place, yes, X will get rated higher than Y. But if we don't weight the votes, and 9 people rate movie X at 1st place, and 10 people rate movie Y at 25th place, movie Y is going to get rated higher than X.
There will be possible inequities no matter how we do it. I suppose we could follow the BCS lead and average a whole bunch of different rankings (weighted, unweighted, quartile, decile, etc.), but while I would find this fascinating, I'm a professional statistician, and I suspect most people would just be confused and/or annoyed.
At some point we're going to have to move from suggestions and discussions, to decisions. When that time comes, the powers that be (Edwin & Seth ?) should either consider all of the ideas and make the decisions, or present us with some options to vote on (e.g., no cutoff, 1996 cutoff or 1998 cutoff).
Obviously, we're not going to please everyone 100%, but I think once the rules are decided, we can move on to the real purpose here - fixing the AFI 100 list .

 

[Robert Crawford]

Therefore, if we have a cutoff, I think it should be eliminating films made after 1998, not 1996.

Okay George which film(s) you want included from 1997 and 1998? I'm guessing either or both "Saving Private Ryan" or "L.A. Confidential".
Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

By the way all kidding aside, I'm in agreement with Seth, Walter, and Edwin that the cutoff should be pre-1997 just like the AFI list.

Crawdaddy

 

[george kaplan]

I'd vote for 2 post-1996 films: L.A. Confidential and Toy Story 2.

 

[Bill Buklis]

I think there can be enough perspective for films through at least 1998. That's already nearly 3 years old. Only the really great ones from '97 or '98 will be cherished at this point.

And on that note, I'd second Saving Private Ryan and Toy Story 2.

If we were to include '99, then I'd add The Matrix. This film will probably easily be on my top 100 20 years from now.

---

Hmm... After a quick check, isn't Toy Story 2 also from 1999? I'd still vote for it.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Through an undetermined method we're going to come up with a list of alternates and then come up with a list of 100 movies picking from the alternate list and the original AFI one.

Well, my method is slightly like that.
I was suggesting pulling 25 off no matter what, sticking them in a pot with 25-50 alternates, then from that pot of 50-75 films picking 25 to fill up those 25 spots.
This would mean that anywhere from 0 to 25 films on the original list would be removed, depeding on how that vote went.
I'm not sure I like the challenge of picking a total 100 from 150 all at once, that's just a lot of films to consider all at the same time.
I think we should start working on a 50 alternates list for sure though. That seems to be one roughly agreed upon concept.
That will get us the new 50 in a month or less just in time for the poor bastards just finishing up to have to start on a new list.
Plus, I think we all would like to get that 50 alternate list together quickly for our viewing sake.
That means that we need to have CRITERIA for choosing.
1) English speaking - does this mean all British, Australian, and Canadian films are in? That's a lot of Hitch back in and in fairness to the AFI they might have put together a different list if some of those other films were available. I think I prefer to at least stay within the AFI rules on this. I would bet that with our nominations we could mostly refer to the already existing 300 alternates for help. I doubt many of our choices will go outside that list.
2) Greatness as film and/or historical significance? - tough one. I definately think QUALITY films should be considered, ie best films, but at least some historical perspective should be kept. But as example I would consider removing Jazz Singer, talky or not, and replace it with Great Train Robbery. They are both landmarks and I find GTR to be less "gimmicky". Jazz Singer had sound but it made little attempt to be a good film outside of that and I don't think a gimmick should make a film great.
Otherwise we would have to consider Phantom Menace to be great simply because it was groundbreaking in featuring the first totally CGI characters to play major roles with human actors in a film.
3) Deadline year - maybe 98, but I don't have a problem with a 96 or 97 cutoff date. Definately want a couple of years to have passed to gain a better perspective on a films place within the world.
Lets try to knock out a consensous on these criteria before the end of the month if not sooner. That way we can get a good 50 alternate list together by mid-Jan at the latest. I'd say we should shoot for a revote by mid-June.

 

[Brook K]

I would go for lists of 25, simple majority, to create 50 alternates. I'm also for a cutoff of 96, though I wouldn't mind having Eyes Wide Shut on there.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Well, the overwhelming enthusiasm on this boggles my mind.
I assume you are all busy with your AFI films, and that those of us finished are busy with Oscar season.
Please, don't be afraid to start putting down something absolute so that we can weigh everyone's opinion on criteria and start making lists. There are no wrong answers when it comes to opinions for criteria.
I know that we have not heard from everyone involved and I was hoping we would.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I think I have weighed in on some of the issues already brought forward. But it wouldn't be fair to make a decision now on any of the open issues even as the Challenge is still winding down. At the same time, we do need to get going with this as soon as the Challenge is over.

Therefore, I suggest a January 15th cutoff date for everyone to be heard. Then someone needs to make a decision on all of the issues raised.

~Edwin

 

[RobertR]

Just to be clear, do we have to have a full 25 alternates to be eligible?

 

[george kaplan]

I think I've said quite a bit . I'm actually champing at the bit to vote, and even have my lists prepared. But until there's some concensus of the rules, I don't know how I'll need to tweak my lists, or even which lists to send you. So, I'm just waiting for the official decisions.

 

[Brook K]

I'm ready to go too. I've given my opinions and thought about my list, just waiting on the "go" to send it.

I think you just need to look at all the suggestions and make an executive decision, Seth.

 

[Jon Huber]

I've been thinking about my alternate list too and could have both my eliminate list and alternate list compiled pretty quickly.

All of my 25 alternates are on the AFI 'Other 300' list. I'm okay with limiting it to that. This is the AFI challenge after all.

Seth and Edwin, I think you are the guys to make the final decision on the rules.

Jon

 

[Seth Paxton]

Believe me, I have no problem making a call (just think of the top 10 of 2000 list ), but I do want to make sure a decision includes hearing from all involved. I can't guarantee to make everyone happy, but I do know that you can get a lot of good ideas from listening to others first.
Okay, I'll start working up my own "vote" lists for various methods so that I, too, can be ready to "ship" my lists off.
I'm 100% behind Edwin's cutoff date to be heard. I'll bump this thread if need be to make sure everyone in Movies gets a chance to be heard.
At this point I don't think anyone will have to have 25 alternates. Instead we will be having a MAX cap so that we don't get swamped with other choices. Then we will pare down all of those to some amount (25-50) that we will try to require everyone to see so that we can revote the list.
As you are thinking about these alternates at this point, I guess we stick with the combo of quality film and historical importance to society and film. However, I think we should REDUCE the weight of HISTORICAL importance. An example is that I don't think JAZZ SINGER should be so highly regarded for being the first. If that were the case then we certainly need to go back to the first film exhibited period, at least in 16 mm or 35 mm commercial film or whatever.
And to me that could be just as pointless. I mean technically speaking, "The Great Train Robbery" is a large step forward in cross-cutting and narrative filmmaking which to me is easily as important as a few seconds of gimmicky sound. It's not like no one was working on sound films or that the Jazz Singer introduced a new concept to the world of film. It simply was the first to get it out to the audiences.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I think I need to rename myself the thread "grave digger". I'm just bringing this thread back from the dead to see what the latest news is on the situation of voting the HTF 100.