4 ms·

The problem with allowing for only one (and occasionally two) movies per year is that great movies do not appear equally distributed. There could be a year in w

by kleiba 4y ago

The problem with allowing for only one (and occasionally two) movies per year is that great movies do not appear equally distributed. There could be a year in which four absolute fantastic movies were made while in the next year saw only mediocre releases. By approaching the list based on year, this would imply that you get to watch one of the mediocre movies of the second year but only one (or two) of the fantastic movies of the year before.

intothemild 4y ago
Yeah, I agree. Limiting to one is tricky, when years like 1982 are famous for having multiple amazing films (in this example all released in the summer) You're right that "Greatest Hit of that year" is going to wildly swing in quality, and you could miss other films that are arguably the better film. Take that 1982 example again, the writer chose E.T. .. an amazing film by all accounts, but ignored Bladerunner, Empire Strikes Back, The Thing, Tron, Conan the Barbarian, Wrath of Kahn etc etc... Sure not all these films are equal, but the metric of highest grossing film might work fine in the older years.. but I'm going to say that lately, that metric doesn't work anymore. And it doesn't work because honestly, was Spiderman the best film from last year?
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  I thumbed to 1939 in the "1001 Films to See Before You Die" and got these (three I believe are "foreign" films however): Stagecoach, Zangiku Monogatari, Babes In Arms, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Wizard of Oz, Destry Rides Again, Only Angels Have Wings, Gone with The Wind, Le Jour Se Lève, Gunga Din, Ninotchka, La Règle Du Jeu, Wuthering Heights
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  IIRC, Gandhi swept through most of the awards in 1982 and many movies that could have been recognized for their brilliance went unnoticed by the awards because Gandhi was such a powerhouse of a movie.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
OJFord 4y ago
Yeah, you're obviously not going to get as much that's as old, but I think I'd rather use something like IMDB's top 250 - https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/ https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/. Maybe throw some much older ones in on some other basis - e.g. a couple of Christmases ago I discovered there have been a lot of adaptations of 'Oliver[!] [Twist]', and the one that I considered 'the' one (i.e. that I watched as a child, basically) was far from the first; we watched a few of the much older ones, spanning 1920-40ish iirc, quite interesting.
tzs 4y ago
Yup. Even if you only look within a relatively small category of films one per year can miss a bunch. For example, consider the category of animated feature length films released after 2000 in the US, and pick one per year by picking the winner of the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. In 2001 you'd miss Monsters, Inc. because of Shrek. In 2002 you'd miss Lilo & Stitch because of Spirited Away. In 2004 you'd miss Shrek 2 because of The Incredibles. In 2005 you'd miss Howl's Moving Castle and Corpse Bride because of Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. In 2008, no Kung Fu Panda because of WALL-E. In 2009, no Coraline or Fantastic Mr. Fox because of Up. In 2010 you'd miss How to Train Your Dragon because of Toy Story 3. In 2011 no Kung Fu Panda 2 because of Rango. In 2012 no Frankenweenie, ParaNorman, The Pirates! Band of Misfits, or Wreck-it Ralph because of Brave. In 2014 no How to Train Your Dragon 2 because of Big Hero 6. 2015 no Shaun the Sheep Movie because of Inside Out. 2016 you miss Kubo and the Two Strings and Moana because of Zootopia. 2019 No How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World because of Toy Story 4. 2021 you'd miss Raya and the Last Dragon and Luca because of Encanto. Most of the winners are good...but if you just put all the above mentioned films in a pool and asked most people to pick their top 14, most would have a lot of films on their list that were not among the winners of the aforementioned years.
aidenn0 4y ago
The list has 5 from 1939, so it's not limited to two per year. [edit] Also 5 from 1951, 4 from '61 and several years with 3 (most recently 1990)

by kleiba 4y ago

intothemild 4y ago

Yeah, I agree. Limiting to one is tricky, when years like 1982 are famous for having multiple amazing films (in this example all released in the summer) You're right that "Greatest Hit of that year" is going to wildly swing in quality, and you could miss other films that are arguably the better film. Take that 1982 example again, the writer chose E.T. .. an amazing film by all accounts, but ignored Bladerunner, Empire Strikes Back, The Thing, Tron, Conan the Barbarian, Wrath of Kahn etc etc... Sure not all these films are equal, but the metric of highest grossing film might work fine in the older years.. but I'm going to say that lately, that metric doesn't work anymore. And it doesn't work because honestly, was Spiderman the best film from last year?

JKCalhoun 4y ago
I thumbed to 1939 in the "1001 Films to See Before You Die" and got these (three I believe are "foreign" films however): Stagecoach, Zangiku Monogatari, Babes In Arms, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Wizard of Oz, Destry Rides Again, Only Angels Have Wings, Gone with The Wind, Le Jour Se Lève, Gunga Din, Ninotchka, La Règle Du Jeu, Wuthering Heights
Mountain_Skies 4y ago
IIRC, Gandhi swept through most of the awards in 1982 and many movies that could have been recognized for their brilliance went unnoticed by the awards because Gandhi was such a powerhouse of a movie.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

OJFord 4y ago

Yeah, you're obviously not going to get as much that's as old, but I think I'd rather use something like IMDB's top 250 - https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/ https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/. Maybe throw some much older ones in on some other basis - e.g. a couple of Christmases ago I discovered there have been a lot of adaptations of 'Oliver[!] [Twist]', and the one that I considered 'the' one (i.e. that I watched as a child, basically) was far from the first; we watched a few of the much older ones, spanning 1920-40ish iirc, quite interesting.

tzs 4y ago

Yup. Even if you only look within a relatively small category of films one per year can miss a bunch. For example, consider the category of animated feature length films released after 2000 in the US, and pick one per year by picking the winner of the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. In 2001 you'd miss Monsters, Inc. because of Shrek. In 2002 you'd miss Lilo & Stitch because of Spirited Away. In 2004 you'd miss Shrek 2 because of The Incredibles. In 2005 you'd miss Howl's Moving Castle and Corpse Bride because of Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. In 2008, no Kung Fu Panda because of WALL-E. In 2009, no Coraline or Fantastic Mr. Fox because of Up. In 2010 you'd miss How to Train Your Dragon because of Toy Story 3. In 2011 no Kung Fu Panda 2 because of Rango. In 2012 no Frankenweenie, ParaNorman, The Pirates! Band of Misfits, or Wreck-it Ralph because of Brave. In 2014 no How to Train Your Dragon 2 because of Big Hero 6. 2015 no Shaun the Sheep Movie because of Inside Out. 2016 you miss Kubo and the Two Strings and Moana because of Zootopia. 2019 No How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World because of Toy Story 4. 2021 you'd miss Raya and the Last Dragon and Luca because of Encanto. Most of the winners are good...but if you just put all the above mentioned films in a pool and asked most people to pick their top 14, most would have a lot of films on their list that were not among the winners of the aforementioned years.

aidenn0 4y ago

The list has 5 from 1939, so it's not limited to two per year. [edit] Also 5 from 1951, 4 from '61 and several years with 3 (most recently 1990)