What's new

HTF AFI 100 Challenge Revote Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Thanks Dome, I was thinking about doing the same thing. :)
I figured everyone needed the holidays to finish their films, family stuff, etc. I wasn't going to crack the whip until New Years. :D
 

Brian E

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 12, 2000
Messages
1,636
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.
I completely agree with this.

Hopefully a decision can be made by early January and a reasonable deadline for people to see the added films can be set (I have a feeling a lot of them will have already been seen by most).
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Okay, Dome has let me down in digging this thread back up. ;)
Many of you are finishing up now or just finished. Here's what we are going to be looking for from you over this month I think:
1) a list of the bottom 25 films from the current AFI 100 according to you. I think it would be best if these had some sort of general order to them in case a weighted vote is used to find 25 "on the bubble" films rather than just total votes cast.
While some films will be named by many of us, others will end up tied and a weighted scale would help. That's why I would like to see the bottom 25 in a rough order. :)
2) a list of UP TO 25 possible alternate films. Again we could put this in order, but since not everyone will come up with 25 it might not really matter.
From these lists we will put together 25 possible replacements for the "bubble" films. At that time we will probably look into seeing these films just like we did with the original 100. I know, I know, right back into it. At least we can assume this will be 25 other great films. :)
After these 2 tasks are done we should have 75 films + 25 out of the 50, and we can then look into how we will do the final vote.
Any other opinions on all of this should be brought up now. If there are problems with this then speak up. The rest of you who put the AFI 100 aside after finishing, get back into it and get some lists to me.
You can send them to me at [email protected] . Put AFI in the subject so that I can sort it easier in the mail. :)
No hate mail, please. :p)
 

Walter Kittel

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
9,770
This site has some information about the AFI 100 ( and 400 ) that may prove useful to our voters during their deliberations. Link Removed
One of my concerns about the revote ( as has already been discussed ) is the possibility of a number of newer entries populating the list at the expense of older titles. Speaking only for myself, I'm going to attempt to maintain a good mix of titles that represent every decade. My plan is to use a replacement film from the same decade ( or possibly +1 or -1 decade ) whenever I cull one of the 25 films from the list. The site mentioned in the first paragraph has the 400 nominees listed chronologically, which will assist in that process. There likely will be a few exceptions, and I may choose a few films not on the AFI list of 400 nominees. ( This assumes of course, that I cull 25 films. I may select less, depending upon the number of suitable replacements I select. )
I'm not proposing that methodology as a standard for the revote. The point of this post is to provide some insight into my thinking on the process that may be useful to other voters.
- Walter.
 

David Dennison

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 10, 2001
Messages
307
I am a little confused about voting off a bottom 25 of the original AFI 100 list. What if we want more or less than 25 to be removed from the list? Are exactly 25 films going to be removed? I think we should vote only on additions (25 is a reasonable number here), and then do a vote with the 25 compiled additions along with the AFI 100 to determine the final 100. That way there will be a consensus number of AFI 100 films removed (although a maximum of 25).
 

Rob Willey

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 10, 2000
Messages
1,345
Real Name
Rob
I've stayed out of this thread up til now to see if some sort of consensus on criteria would come about. It's still unclear to me whether that has happened or not.
I see we're coming up with up to 25 titles to replace "bubble" films. Are we in agreement what the "bubble" films are??:confused:
Anyway, back to criteria: are we using the same as the AFI used? It seems to me if we're tryinmg to "improve" the Institute's list, we have to adhere to their criteria as much as possible (same time period, same quality ratings such as pioneering efforts and awards received, etc.).
I guess I'm just trolling for a little clarification. Thank you for your consideration.
Rob
 

Walter Kittel

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
9,770
Rob - As I understand it, you'll make an individual determination of up to 25 films that you'd like to see replaced on the current AFI 100. Two lists will be involved. A weighted list of the ( up to ) 25 films to be culled. A second weighted list comprised of the N replacement films where N = the number of films on the culled list. The reason for the ranking of the films is to assist in determining which culled choices squeak by and are retained, and which replacements are popular enough to make the final cut, prior to a revote on a new group of 100 films.

David - I believe the method you've described would still have the same net effect as the culled / replacement lists, assuming that all of your replacement choices are ranked higher than any of your culled films.

Seth or Edwin - Please correct me, if I my understanding of the mechanism is inaccurate.

- Walter.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Okay, still not clear. :)
My intent unless others push for something else with a real effort, not just "maybes"...
We pick 25 BUBBLE films, these are the 25 films that will have to fight for their place on the AFI 100.
These 25 will compete with 25 replacement candidates.
We will pick both the 25 bubble films and the 25 replacement candidates.
Being made a BUBBLE film does not vote it off, it just means that it could be replaced when we pick 25 from the 50.
In theory we could end up keeping anywhere from the original 100 to only the top 75 originals (top being based on our vote of the bottom 25).
Another way to think of it. The 75 films that don't get voted as bubble films will have IMMUNITY from replacement. Those 75 WILL BE on the final list.
Why not more? Because if we replace more than 25 we will be required to SEE more than 25 potential replacement films. Now it might be that everyone will have seen ALL the replacement films, but clearly the greater that number is, the more likely we are to have not seen a few.
Next thing you know we have another 2 year challenge at hand and we will be adding 2 more years worth of new films into the competition as well. :frowning:
This is why some of us at least are pretty much set against doing something like voting from the full 400 that the AFI used. That would require a NEW AFI 400 challenge before the vote. And IMO, no thanks. :)
I picked up to 25% to make it a healthy amount but to still respect a lot of what the AFI has already done. Plus, in practicality I sort of feel that when it comes down to it and we vote as a group we probably won't even replace 25 of the films anyway. So the 25 number gets us safely outside whatever number we will remove but without placing too much new viewing burden on us. :)
Now that is an exhaustive explanation of it all.
My timeline (without dates)
1) Pick 25 BUBBLE films from the original AFI
2) Pick 25 POTENTIAL replacement films from film in general or perhaps only the 400 (plus we should consider films that would now meet the AFI grace period - 3 years I think it was, so maybe through 1997. Those films won't be in the AFI 400 as they were too new at the time).
3) Make sure that everyone sees all 25 potential replacement films.
4) Combine those 25 and 25 for 50 films. Pick the top 25 from that group to be added to the other 75. This 25 might be all replacements or all original bubble films, more likely some combo of both groups.
5) Revote this "new" 100 in some order and in some manner not yet determined. All at once, 90-100 first, 1-10 first, whatever. That's down the road still.
As for criteria, I have heard no one counter the concept of following the AFI criteria of film quality, social impact, cinematic history impact. I would lean with 50% to quality at least, with the other 2 catagories sharing whatever PCT of the criteria is left over.
I also agree with Edwin that we should try to consider and represent films from all eras.
This also is still the AMERICAN FI top 100 revote, so we need to follow those requirements. The original 400 will also help with that.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
I am not requiring you to come up with 25 replacements, but as a group the top 25 chosen replacement films will have a shot at replacing the 25 bubble films.

I would like everyone to pick (in order) their BOTTOM 25 from the AFI list. This will allow me to create the 25 film BUBBLE list. These films will still have a chance to stay on the list but they will have to earn it in a vote with possible replacements.
 

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
This seems pretty straightforward. I've selected my choices for 25 afi films I'd like to see removed, and my 25 choices for films I'd like to see added and I've sent it to Seth.
I do think you need to set up some sort of a deadline to get the lists so that this doesn't drag on indefinitely. :)
 

Brian E

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 12, 2000
Messages
1,636
I would like everyone to pick (in order) their BOTTOM 25 from the AFI list. This will allow me to create the 25 film BUBBLE list. These films will still have a chance to stay on the list but they will have to earn it in a vote with possible replacements.
Seems like extra work. If we just pick up to 25 additional titles each and add them to the list to get 125 total and then vote for our top 100 it would be easier wouldn't it? Then everyone only has to come up with 25 (or less), instead of 50, to get the ball rolling and all of the films have a shot at being there in the end.
 

Brian E

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 12, 2000
Messages
1,636
Seem to be jumping the gun a bit too. It was never decided if any criteria, release data etc., needed to be used in selecting the additional 25. Seems like we're starting without having everything spelled out and in place. If this is going to be a serious list then we need some actual criteria in place to make it more legit IMO.
 

David Dennison

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 10, 2001
Messages
307
Seth, thanks for the clarification note. That should alleviate my concerns for an arbitrary number of exactly 25 movies voted out.

I think we should get the rules/criteria clarified and set some dates to get this rolling. Lists of bottom 25 AFI films and 25 new films by say end of January?
 

Scott Dill

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 2, 1999
Messages
116
I think that Seth's plan is basically sound and well thought out.
The advantage of having separate votes for "bubble films" and "new additions" is that IMHO it allows us to consider the films in smaller, more manageable chunks. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I was asked to make a definitive list of the best 100 films, I would be a bit overwhelmed. The top 10 or 25 (or bottom 10 or 25) is much easier to handle.
Regarding criteria for selection of the new 25 for consideration: The AFI did an admirable job with their list of 400, but I think we should leave it open to our discretion to add films not on that list. For instance, the AFI did not Include The Bride of Frankenstein as a choice and while it might not make our final 100, it definitely deserves a shot.
I have no preference regarding the cut off date. Somewhere between 1996 and 1998 would be appropriate.
 

Brian E

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 12, 2000
Messages
1,636
The advantage of having separate votes for "bubble films" and "new additions" is that IMHO it allows us to consider the films in smaller, more manageable chunks. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I was asked to make a definitive list of the best 100 films, I would be a bit overwhelmed. The top 10 or 25 (or bottom 10 or 25) is much easier to handle.
Ultimately I think Seth's plan will be fine, we just need some hard rules and criteria setup so everyone is on the same page.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
What Scott just said...
I think for thoughtful choices it's better if we can take things on in smaller chunks.
Criteria that I have heard so far -
1) American films following AFI's criteria. If your not sure about a film, put it up here and let's kick it around. :)
2) up to 1998 (I believe it has been 2 years now since AFI released their list which would move the marker from 96 to 98). Nothing newer. While great films continue to get made, these things are best viewed from some distance to fully appreciate the differences between fads and lasting films. We all have those things that we love for the moment but later it fades.
3) Films should be regarded primarily for their effect on cinema due to their greatness, creativity, or outstanding performances. Social effect would be secondary I think, although great films of quality and creativity will tend to have effected society, as will great and memorable performances. Since most of us are too young to appreciate many of these films on their first release, we might want to rely also on how others were affected by these films at the time.
4) As we are making out lists feel free to kick around films in this thread either to promote them or discuss possible removal.
Any thing I left out??
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
I would agree that the replacement considerations should not have to come from the 400, but rather it makes a good guideline.
Again if there is a film you want people to consider, bring it up. Like Bride of Frankenstein as Scott mentioned.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Here is one of my early removal considerations.
Jazz Singer
While audiences might have been thrilled to hear sound in a film, this film did not make sound come about. This technology had been attempted in the very earliest of Edison's efforts for example, and it was coming whether Jazz Singer got made or not.
I don't think Jazz Singer's failure would have kept sound films from arriving. And the use of sound in Jazz Singer is not particularly creative. The film is rather bland and plays a lot like a demo film on the use of sound rather than true filmmaking.
People act like Memento was a gimmick film. Well, Jazz Singer really was.
I will be voting it off myself. Just my opinion on that film.
 

Scott Dill

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 2, 1999
Messages
116
I'm with you on The Jazz Singer I respect it, but did not particularly enjoy it.



A film that I would like to promote for addition to the list is Night of the Living Dead. Not only does it represent and under represented genre on the list, but was influential artistically (just look at all of the zombie films that have followed), technically (Romero claims that this was the first time blood squibs were used) and culturally (When ever Zombies are shown or used in fiction, it seems that they follow the rules set forth by Romero - i.e. slow, hungry and killed by brain damage).



Another question I have regarding the thinning of the list is: What do we do about Chaplin? While all three of his films on this list are great, I really feel that he is over represented. Do you all think that we should have a special revote to only keep one or two, or should they just be left alone and let there fate be decided like the other films?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,647
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top