Christopher Nolan's 2014 grand scale science-fiction story about time and space, and the things that transcend them.
Joined:
January 2015
Location: Poland
lcbaseball22 wrote:Influence is a stupid thing to argue anyways. How about we debate who's put out the best quality films or has the most consistency? In addition to the Metacritic article I posted a few pages back here's a couple other lists for you guys to consider, one is based on gathered data the other is subjective...
I agree completely that it's a silly thing to ARGUE about... but so is best quality. You mentioned you gave links to articles... "one is based on data, the other is sbjective" It's a funny sentence because all of them are subjective. Just because you calculated how many people liked a film, that is not a sign of the overall quality of the film, it's just a calculation of the populairty of the film. Quality is subjective. We might give reasons why we liked something and discuss both qualities and influences but they will always be debatable, hence they are subjective.
Last edited by
LelekPL on March 4th, 2015, 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined:
May 2014
Location: “Where are you?!” “HERE.”
Hustler wrote:Nolan fan 1: Hey, I like Nolan.
Nolan fan 2: Me too. Fantastic director.
Nolan fan 1: Yea, but...
Nolan fan 2: But what?
Nolan fan 1: It's just that... I like him a little better than you.
Nolan fan 2: Nuh uh.
Nolan fan 1: Yea huh.
Nolan fan 2: Well fuck you.
Nolan fan 1: Eat a dick.
Nolan fan 2: Here are some online ratings and articles that no one is going to click on. Clearly I like him better.
Lmfao
Joined:
January 2015
Location: Poland
lcbaseball22 wrote:The same goes for those that claim Cameron's Avatar trumps Nolan's collective works. I don't care if it is the highest grossing film of all time and hailed in the 3D era; it does not surpass a director who has put out a substantial amount of great work over 15 years time and a few masterpieces by many accounts.
If we're talking the 80's or 90's then sure guys like Cameron and Spielberg could stake a claim, but the 21st Century (the 2000's and the first half of the current decade) title belongs to Nolan right now.
Ok, but now you're talking about quality not influence - that's a different discussion. You think that Nolan's films were better and I agree but that's quality! But even you mentioned that Avatar "hailed the 3D era" - that's influence! Two different discussions.
Again, I'm not saying that Cameron is "more influential". I'm saying that both of them are influential and you can't really definitely say who's more and who's less.
Because I prefer to focus on quality rather than influence. Quality is far more measurable in a sense.
Sure, if you want to be semantic the judging of a film's quality is subjective as well, but when we compile a consensus of opinions we can begin to approach objectivity, which is what the TheyShootPicturesDon'tThey site is going for. From the 21st Century's 1000 Most Acclaimed Films List-
The 21st Century’s Most Acclaimed Films is an annually-updated compendium of end-of-year, end-of-decade, all-time and miscellaneous lists and ballots. This is the eighth edition. It contains, based on TSPDT's calculations, the leading films (critically-speaking) from 2000 to 2014. It has been compiled from the multiple lists/ballots of 2,169 critics/sources.
Now while they list Steven Soderberg as the top director of the 21st century we have to think a bit more critically I think because Soderberg has no films in the Top 150 of the list, whereas Nolan has THREE.
You tell me, is it enough just to have the most films in the Top 1000 or does it mean more to have higher ranked films?
Joined:
February 2012
Location: Boston, Taxachusetts.
lcbaseball22 wrote:ComptonTerry wrote:
And I have not changed my argument, my central argument has been the same
Oh really?
Yes... Really. It hasn't. My central argument is the exact same, my examples for it have changed. A little.
And trying to say that films that came out right before this century, that clearly revolutionized things going forward, don't count is pretty out there and self defeating.
But I will say no more, have the last word if you insist on it and lets let this topic either go back to normal or get locked.
So speaking of the Oscars have you all noticed the articles floating around that the Oscar committee may revert to only five Best Picture nominees? How do you think this would affect Nolan's chances? Will he ever have a film nominated for the big prize again?
source-
http://www.awardsdaily.com/blog/2015/03 ... k-to-five/
I feel that this commenter has some good ideas to counter the Oscar issues...
ANTOINETTE wrote:What I think is that this is a great opportunity. If they want to go back to their exclusive club, let them. They can have their award ceremony in some country club where only they get to know who won because nobody needs them to tell us what the good movies are anymore. We have the internet for that. *waves bye bye*
The great opportunity is actually for something like the IMDb to make their own awards ceremony that the people who really do like movies can tune in to and see the best movies of the year actually win awards.
Last year, the winner would have been INTERSTELLAR if it were up to them and I hold that it will be the 2014 film remembered years from now as a classic. The people get it right most of the time. Their system already works. So why not? The could even have an award to correct a year they got wrong. Maybe call it the Before Its Time award going to the film that history shows was greater than the people of the time thought. The inaugural winner would have to be THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. Or maybe in its honor even call the award the Redemption award.
Otherwise the People’s Choice Awards could get serious and allow people only one ballot by way of registering with a phone number. Allow people to nominate ten in each category on their single ballot and then allow one vote after the nominations. They could have a big nominations show and then the actually awarding ceremony where the winners did not know in advance so that there would be some suspense instead of just looking at the list of attendees to see who won. If they tighten up their rules it could be a great night. Or nights. Maybe the music awards one night and the movie and TV awards the next night. Or 3 nights. Music on Friday, TV on Saturday, then Movies on Sunday. That would be a hoot. The People’s Weekend! The best way to do it, in my opinion would be to not open the nomination voting to happen until the end of January, so that the normal folks will have had a chance to see the “Oscar movies” and deem them crap. And then have the ceremony in March. You know, like the old days.
I really think this going back to 5 stuff is the perfect situation for some group that wants to get the fans that the Hollywood elite don’t want. You know, the ones who actually BUY tickets.
Joined:
January 2015
Location: Poland
lcbaseball22 wrote:Because I prefer to focus on quality rather than influence. Quality is far more measurable in a sense.
Sure, if you want to be semantic the judging of a film's quality is subjective as well, but when we compile a consensus of opinions we can begin to approach objectivity, which is what the TheyShootPicturesDon'tThey site is going for. From the 21st Century's 1000 Most Acclaimed Films List-
The 21st Century’s Most Acclaimed Films is an annually-updated compendium of end-of-year, end-of-decade, all-time and miscellaneous lists and ballots. This is the eighth edition. It contains, based on TSPDT's calculations, the leading films (critically-speaking) from 2000 to 2014. It has been compiled from the multiple lists/ballots of 2,169 critics/sources.
Now while they list Steven Soderberg as the top director of the 21st century we have to think a bit more critically I think because Soderberg has no films in the Top 150 of the list, whereas Nolan has THREE.
You tell me, is it enough just to have the most films in the Top 1000 or does it mean more to have higher ranked films?
Sticking with semantics, we won't have a consensus of opinion if even one person disagrees. And in the case of opinions that one person won't be wrong (or right for that matter). Film and its quality is thus still subjective. What you're talking about is popularity! What films the majority of people enjoy. And yes, this is countable and can be objective. .. But it's not the quality - it's popularity (or at least the number of positive reviews - popularity of opinion - since one could argue that general popularity can be based on box office alone and not on reviews). I know, semantics. But still, quality is not objective and never will be. We can discuss it as much as we want and much like with "influence" we won't reach a clear consensus. You're suggesying debating what films have the biggest amount of positive opinions. Again, that's not exactly quality...
Joined:
February 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
are we able to lock an entire sub-forum?
Joined:
June 2012
Location: stuck in 2020
Cilogy wrote:are we able to lock an entire sub-forum?
Yes please.
