Most of you probably touched on the previous thread to know what this was about, but in case you skipped that thread figuring it didn't pertain to you I will recap the process we went through. 1) People made sure to watch every AFI 100 film by Dec 31, 2001. This was the AFI challenge we had going. This included not just films people had not seen, but also any films they hadn't seen recently enough to comfortably discuss (stuff that they didn't remember well). 2) Of the people that finished that part a sub-group agreed to try to redo the list. Not every person who completed the challenge wanted to do this, even if they disagreed with the AFI list. The point here is that this new list is only made up of opinions from people who believed in such a process (the ability to revote, relist or the worth of a group vote). These people were willing to put their own opinions on the line next to the AFI's. 3) After debating the process the decision was made to automatically KEEP 75 of the original AFI films. This was done by vote. So only 25 films would be at risk of removal from the list. The reasoning was that the AFI did have many things right (did we really need to revote on Citizen Kane or Casablanca), and while any one person might disagree with 50-60 of the choices it would be tough to get everyone to agree on even 25 "wrong" films. 4) To match this the group also selected 25 films not on the AFI 100 to possibly replace these 25 "wrong" films. Why only 25 of these? Well the point should be obvious, if we all agreed on the bottom 25 and we all agreed on the top 25 films left off, then all 25 would be replaced with these new films. That would leave the extra replacement films off the list still. So why have 30 replacement films when only 25 spots were available. Take time to note this aspect - had we needed to remove more than 25 films because we all agreed on AT LEAST 25 films that should have been on the list, then we should expect all 25 films voted for removal to end up off the list. IF THIS CASE IS MET, then I would reconsider the thinking that 25 was a large enough group. 5) We took the bottom 25 AFI films and the top 25 replacement films and voted on them. Basically we picked the top 25 from this group of 50. This meant that each film had to fight it's way on to the list. A film could be voted as a bottom 25 film, yet still beat out the other 25 replacement films and end up back on the final 100 list. So NO FILMS were actually automatically off the list. It simply meant that the bottom 25 had to EARN THEIR WAY ON against the 25 "best" films we picked to go up against them. This meant that out final 100 COULD BE THE SAME as the AFI 100. Or it could have 25 new films. Or the most likely case, it would have some new films but less than 25. 6) We took the 25 "winning" films from that vote (which were NOT all new as it turns out, though we replaced quite a lot of the 25) and we added them back to the top 75 films. This "new" group of 100 films was then voted on to create a HTF version of the AFI 100. Notes on eligibility We went with the AFI 100 YEARS, 100 films method. So no films past 1996. It makes little sense to complain about the AFI list not including a film that wasn't even eligible to make their list. Our goal was to redo the AFI with our tastes/standards, not to make a list covering totally different films. We allowed the same loose "American" eligibility that the AFI did. This meant that films like the Bond series remained in the mix mainly due to a studio connection or a single American star. It meant that we decided not to undo stuff like Lawrence of Arabia or Bridge on the River Kwai, which people had faulted as not truly being American films. Right or wrong, we made a choice to stand behind. Voting The voting was done with RANKED lists, in which votes were WEIGHTED by placement on the list. So a #1 film on a list would get 25 points, and the 25th film would get 1 point. For the final 100 this was 100 points to 1 point. A film's score was the sum of all the points it got and films were obviously ranked by this total. This is opposed to an all-or-none method where you add votes without weighting, or a personal weighting method in which a person could weight each film themselves - this is similar to the regular weighted version except that the spacing between films is no longer automatic. Instead with such a method a person could consider the top 5 films equal and then have a huge gap to the next film. When you rate films at IMDb this is the method you are really using. The reason we didn't use that style is for simplicity. Trust me when I say it's hard enough to rank films, but even harder if you then throw in a new dynamic of deciding "how much" better a film is versus another. I think a dynamic weighting could have been more accurate in the end, but just not worth the trouble. The all or none method simply wasn't practical considering the size of lists and the type of ranking being done. Even the removal list would have resulted in 20 films tied with 1 vote for the last 2-3 spots or something. Ties were one thing we were trying to avoid. Phew. Hopefully that is an exhaustive enough explanation for any people with questions about the process. WHAT WAS THE POINT? Well as you all probably know, the AFI 100 list received a great deal of debate and many complaints. So we decided to do something about it. Rather than cast stones from some safe distance (which seems a bit cheap to me), we decided to go through the process ourselves to see if our results really would be that different. Also, the process is a bit cathartic for some of us who didn't care for the AFI list. It gave us a chance to have our thoughts count I suppose. While the voters list is NOT a compilation of all the HTF, nor is it even a noteworthy subsection of it, it does represent people with 2 key requirements. They have to have seen all the films being voted on (which included the replacement films), and they have to be INTERESTED AND WILLING to go through such a voting process. In that sense this IS the HTF AFI list because it represents the work of the only members that gave a shit about creating such a thing. (well, a few new members joined HTF too late to participate. sorry to you guys) With that aside, let's get to the results. The next post will contain the list. I will reveal this list in groups of 10 over the next 10 weeks, starting at the BOTTOM and climbing to #1. When I add more to the list I will edit this 2nd post, but I will also bump the list with an announcement post. Beyond that we expect discussion. I think anyone should be involved, but I'm sure many of you would like to hear from the voters. To that end I think what I will do is also include any short comments from some of the voters IN THE LIST POST. Mainly I will ask for comments from either voters who ranked the film close to where it ended, and from voters who had a film ranked very far from where it ended (a film ended 96th and someone put it 20th on their list, for example). I will also try to make the list post look nice, but for right now it will be plain jane. I don't want anyone to have to wait any longer to start getting the results. The voters are running low on patience. The results represent a variety of tastes and I think the process shows that while any one person might not like the list, the point is that it represents a VARIETY of tastes. After all film is an art that is very much about group appreciation. A last note - THANKS to all the voters. It was a lot of work on their part and it required many of them to wait on the rest of us for a long time at points. Also, there was a spirit of teamwork in the process as we all tried to make sure we could each see the films we hadn't yet seen. The result of the process is that many of us were introduced to a LOT of great films we hadn't seen, even films that were just recommended for replacement but which didn't actually make the list of films we were required to see. Personally this process resulted in my purchase of The General and The Last Laugh, along with numerous rentals. The Voters Me (Seth), David Dennison, Allen Hirsch, Evan Case, Gabe D, Mark Zimmer, George Kaplan, John Knowles, Jon Huber, DonMac, Brian E, Scott Merryfield, Jay E, Jason L Thi Them, Brook K were with us until the last vote (ordering the final 100) Walter Kittle, Scott Dill and Mitty were with us early on but had to drop out.