[Indi]

QUOTE (ShaneHunter @ Thursday, Apr 19 2012, 15:48)

indi i know im becoming a pain in the ass but could you change Goodfellas genre into Crime Drama?? It is more that than straight action if you know what i mean.

Point taken.

[Typhus]

QUOTE (ShaneHunter @ Thursday, Apr 19 2012, 05:51)

typhus your just misinformed and you don't know nothing.  Apocalypse Now isn't pretentious in the contrary it might be the greatest war film of all time. You nominate The Room and put down Apocalypse Now?? That one sentence speaks a thousand words. You don't understand John Lennon at all, he was a complicated person and first off he wasn't supporting the Soviet Union like you stated, he wasn't a communist he even said that in many interviews that he believed in peaceful revolution not violent (which is the route many communist countries went.) The US has and had many things wrong with it and Lennon was right in everything he pointed out. He believed in love not war. Just listen to Imagine, he is putting religion down for the reasons i stated in the other John Lennon thread. Oh how misinformed you are my 'dear' Typhus.

Greatest war film of all time? My good fellow, whatever are you talking about?
I'll grant you, the first half of Apocalypse Now is enjoyable enough, but once Kurtz actually appears, it descends into boorish psychobabble. None of the performances are really that memorable, save perhaps for Robert Duvall, and it just seems like a hazy drug trip rather than a coherent, intelligent film.
One could argue that the disorientating nature of the film was in itself a commentary on the confused nature of the Vietnam War, and I feel that there's some validity in this. But it is not enjoyable, it is not entertaining and at the end of the day, it's not even half as intelligent and meaningful as it believes itself to be.

Oh, and Lennon was a fascist. Growing a beard and refusing to bathe doesn't change his ugly, Nazi spirit. So why don't you be a man, apologise and realise that I don't "don't know nothing". In fact I do "know nothing" and have been very proud of that fact for some time.

I await your grovelling, humiliating retraction.
Oh, and Ringo Starr's drumming was adequate at best.

[ShaneHunter]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Thursday, Apr 19 2012, 16:06)

QUOTE (ShaneHunter @ Thursday, Apr 19 2012, 05:51) typhus your just misinformed and you don't know nothing.  Apocalypse Now isn't pretentious in the contrary it might be the greatest war film of all time. You nominate The Room and put down Apocalypse Now?? That one sentence speaks a thousand words. You don't understand John Lennon at all, he was a complicated person and first off he wasn't supporting the Soviet Union like you stated, he wasn't a communist he even said that in many interviews that he believed in peaceful revolution not violent (which is the route many communist countries went.) The US has and had many things wrong with it and Lennon was right in everything he pointed out. He believed in love not war. Just listen to Imagine, he is putting religion down for the reasons i stated in the other John Lennon thread. Oh how misinformed you are my 'dear' Typhus. Greatest war film of all time? My good fellow, whatever are you talking about? I'll grant you, the first half of Apocalypse Now is enjoyable enough, but once Kurtz actually appears, it descends into boorish psychobabble. None of the performances are really that memorable, save perhaps for Robert Duvall, and it just seems like a hazy drug trip rather than a coherent, intelligent film. One could argue that the disorientating nature of the film was in itself a commentary on the confused nature of the Vietnam War, and I feel that there's some validity in this. But it is not enjoyable, it is not entertaining and at the end of the day, it's not even half as intelligent and meaningful as it believes itself to be. Oh, and Lennon was a fascist. Growing a beard and refusing to bathe doesn't change his ugly, Nazi spirit. So why don't you be a man, apologise and realise that I don't "don't know nothing". In fact I do "know nothing" and have been very proud of that fact for some time. I await your grovelling, humiliating retraction. Oh, and Ringo Starr's drumming was adequate at best.

I'm trying to figure out whether your a self-righteous glorified troll who is doing a good job or whether your being serious. Everything you say just boggles my mind save for a couple of things but despite that your still screwed in the head. And i agree with you on Ringo as a drummer but his post Beatle album "Ringo" was pretty good and he forked out some amazing tracks on that album (I'm The Greatest, Photograph etc)

Like i said earlier there's something that's just off about you, you're abnormal

[Robinski]

It's hard to take any criticism of taste, regarding visual media, seriously from someone with that mangled image as a signature.

Just throwing that out there.

[AceRay]

Hey, after we're finished with top 100 films, does anyone else want to do something like a top 100 games in gaming forum?

It would be beast.

[Tycek]

QUOTE (AceRay @ Thursday, Apr 19 2012, 22:43)

Hey, after we're finished with top 100 films, does anyone else want to do something like a top 100 games in gaming forum? It would be beast.

I would be interested. Idea seems great apart from all these flame wars we could ignite, but it's worth to try.

OT: Ladies, ladies, you both are looking great, but can we please move on? I believe Indi made this topic for other purposes than disscussions about Lennon's ideals and beliefs or quality of Ringo Starr talent.

In topics regarding people likes and dislikes we can't elude fights, wars, bitting, venom spitting and any other forms of defending one opinion and discrediting the other one. Typhus nominated one movie and wrote nice reason for that. He beliefs that this movie should be on list like that. Some other member nominated American Pie, because he actually believe in that. If someone would like to nominate "Plan 9 from outer space" and wrote actual reason for that do we have right to not include it on the list?

If movie is really bad, and for example Typhus will be alone in his opinion, it will be pushed far from the list or end up on one of the last places, which will give us the same result. So no big deal here.

This post has been edited by Tycek on Thursday, Apr 19 2012, 21:49

[ShaneHunter]

I'm going to go insane if Raging Bull doesn't get a nomination. 'Nuff said

[Typhus]

QUOTE (ShaneHunter @ Friday, Apr 20 2012, 15:47)

I'm going to go insane if Raging Bull doesn't get a nomination. 'Nuff said

Don't you find it a bit depressing though? I will certainly concede that it contains DeNiro's best performance, but I can't help but judge a film on its entertainment value. And for all the fight scenes, I did not find it entertaining. You basically just see LaMotta alienate every single person in his life, it's an ordeal to sit through about three hours of his vicious mood swings and descent into obesity and at the end there's no redemption, he's just a bad man who ends up alone and destitute.

It's got the same bleak, arthouse quality that a lot of Scorsese's work contains. Which is probably why I rate his newer work far ahead of stuff like Taxi Driver.

[ShaneHunter]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Friday, Apr 20 2012, 16:06)

QUOTE (ShaneHunter @ Friday, Apr 20 2012, 15:47) I'm going to go insane if Raging Bull doesn't get a nomination. 'Nuff said  Don't you find it a bit depressing though? I will certainly concede that it contains DeNiro's best performance, but I can't help but judge a film on its entertainment value. And for all the fight scenes, I did not find it entertaining. You basically just see LaMotta alienate every single person in his life, it's an ordeal to sit through about three hours of his vicious mood swings and descent into obesity and at the end there's no redemption, he's just a bad man who ends up alone and destitute. It's got the same bleak, arthouse quality that a lot of Scorsese's work contains. Which is probably why I rate his newer work far ahead of stuff like Taxi Driver.

It is one of the best movies ever made because of the photography, the editing, the production design (at times the ring is larger than it is at other times); De Niro never tries to get us to like La Motta and yet he is somewhat sympathetic despite everything. He is literally like an animal in and out of the ring (listen to the animal roars when he is beating up Joey for being told that Joey and Jake's wife are having an affair).

When the head mobster tells Joey that Jake is never going to get a title shot without doing it for them, Joey and Jake are the only ones that know that Jake is going to throw the fight. And he does. But even here, he does it his way. He doesn't throw a punch, but the guy never comes close to knocking him down. The scene of De Niro crying on his trainer's shoulder in the next scene is heartbreaking because Jake realizes that he has thrown out the only morals he has in his life-honor in the ring. Sure it can be depressing and by the end it does suck out some of your energy but not all movies are supposed to end on a high note.

I just don't understand how you can say that Raging Bull is not entertaining.

This post has been edited by ShaneHunter on Friday, Apr 20 2012, 17:51

[Fnorg]

Different people have different tastes. Shocking. I personally was bored pretty much start to finish. I can appreciate the technical merits, but it's just so damn boring.

[ShaneHunter]

QUOTE (Fnorg @ Friday, Apr 20 2012, 17:55)

Different people have different tastes. Shocking. I personally was bored pretty much start to finish. I can appreciate the technical merits, but it's just so damn boring.

I respect your opinion. On another note The Good The Bad And The Ugly is one of my top favorite films so i can respect that

_________________________
I added cool smileys to this message... if you don't see them go to: http://s.exps.me

[Robinski]

I'm glad Office Space showed up. I was going to nominate it, but I only just saw it for the first time the other day, and I tend to get more excited about films just after watching them than I really should. So I wasn't sure if it was really that good or if I'd just been in a good mood or something when I watched it.

Same goes for Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. I can't decide whether to use my last nomination on it or not.

This post has been edited by Robinski on Monday, Apr 23 2012, 08:27

[TheCacti]

QUOTE (Indi @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 23:13)

• How will films be decided? By polls and reviews, if a person votes in a poll it will give 1 point. If a person then also votes and writes a review of the film (a very good length); then 2 points will be awarded. (1 vote for poll, 2 votes added onto that for a total of 3). A poll will be open for 3 days and will be divided into rounds. Films will be randomly selected to go up against each other.

I'm not sure how the previous competition was scored, but having written reviews counting as two points in addition to voting just seems unjust and unnecessary, doesn't it?

I mean, if two film are tied on votes, that means whichever film receives more written reviews (of very good length) will be the difference - no matter how silly and subjective those reviews may be. Voting alone should suffice. The reviews and ensuing debate can add value in their ability to solicit votes for certain films. I just don't see how a system that rewards more points for a written review over a single vote (which are pretty much synonymous) is going to be fair. If I'm the only one who thinks this I'll shut up.

[Fnorg]

I suggested that to promote discussion and lessen the power of 'stragglers', i.e. people who just show up, click the movie they have seen out of the two competing and then f*ck off. This could, in theory anyway, help out lesser-seen movies in the poll. It could also do the opposite, depending on how many people actually write out their thoughts. It's easy to give away a point when it's just a matter of clicking, but if it takes some effort to squeeze out another point I don't think all that many people will go for it.

[TheCacti]

The idea is certainly good in order to lessen the weight of people who may just pop in and vote without really giving fair thought or attention to the options. However, if the only criterion for being awarded the two points is "length," then I think the rule may need a bit of refinement.

According to the way it is now, American Pie could go up against Shawshank Redemption, for example, and if more people are willing to write about how funny the dick jokes are, then that could lead to what I believe is an unjust decision between the two films at hand, all because it came down to more people took the time to write for film X rather than film Y.

A solution? I'm not exactly sure. But I'll just throw this idea out there: what if we were to elect a judge, who would not partake in the competition of voting, but instead, as objectively as possible, weigh the arguments put forth by the all the participants who do contribute and ultimately award a fixed number of additional points to the 'victor.' Perhaps each individual argument - ideally judged by its quality not quantity - could be potentially worth 2 points? or perhaps only one film between the two can be awarded a sum of points? For example, two fantastic film are neck and neck in the voting poll (let's say 21 votes to 19) and only one of the film can be awarded an additional 5 points, thus the winner all comes down to which film emerges victorious in the debate.

This could lead to some very intense reviews, rebuttals, and banter altogether. This way, the voting still carries its weight but the outcome of the debate should help to diminish the input of the "stragglers." Just an idea.

[Indi]

I always thought putting in the genres would have saved the headache. Putting a list of films in one section for "Action", "Drama" e.t.c. and then randomly it going up against one of those films.

It's still unjustified. But it works better because they do have something in common.

[vertical limit]

QUOTE (Tycek @ Thursday, Apr 19 2012, 21:45)

QUOTE (AceRay @ Thursday, Apr 19 2012, 22:43) Hey, after we're finished with top 100 films, does anyone else want to do something like a top 100 games in gaming forum? It would be beast. I would be interested. Idea seems great apart from all these flame wars we could ignite, but it's worth to try.

That seems like a great idea. Anybody has objections, speak now or fever hold your silence.

[DeeperRed]

QUOTE (Indi @ Monday, Apr 23 2012, 22:09)

I always thought putting in the genres would have saved the headache. Putting a list of films in one section for "Action", "Drama" e.t.c. and then randomly it going up against one of those films. It's still unjustified. But it works better because they do have something in common.

But thats not going to be fair. It should just be X vs Y film. Then its down to people to vote by justifying there choice, why they personally found that one better.

If someone finds american pie better then shaunshank because they found the former more entertaining then who's right is it to say there wrong. People all have different ways to judge films and it will be interesting to see what people have to say when choosing between apple and oranges. This is GTAForums top 100 films which means as a community we came together to see as a whole what ranks from 1 to 100. So as long as its people who have actually watched both films and have a good explanation behind there choice (no poll for defiante) then it should be pretty fair playing ground for all the films.

[Indi]

What if I take away the poll option and only allow a vote for people who have provided an explanation on why they have chosen that film?

[DeeperRed]

QUOTE (Indi @ Tuesday, Apr 24 2012, 01:07)

What if I take away the poll option and only allow a vote for people who have provided an explanation on why they have chosen that film?

Thats exactly what I was trying to say

While the quantity of votes will be smaller the quality of them will be far higher.