Talk:List of films considered the best/Archive 3

message: Someone added the following template to the top of the article. It is clearly metadata for editors, so I am moving to the appropiate location. Make of it what you will:
:No, this template is obviously meant for the article page: Any notice of bias belongs on the article because it qualifies the accuracy of the article to readers, and it refers the reader to the talk page, so obviously isn't meant to be posted on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes. 119 21:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice the comment above this section on this talk page? Where someone has bothered to write "nice job"? Please don't slap comments that effectively say "THIS ARTICLE IS CRAP" across the top of the page without contributing anything to it. Not even a comment on the talk page explaining why you think it is crap. It is extremely rude to other editors, and does nothing to help the reader. Pcb21| Pete 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is emotional and not relevant. Bias is bias, it doesn't matter who thinks they should get a pat on the back. Removing accusations of bias from article pages and putting them on talk pages only is greatly reducing the number of people that will see it and doing a disservice to the reader. 119 17:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is absolutely not doing a disservice to the reader. We have a link to a disclaimer on every single page. Are we trying to dupe the reader into believing that articles that don't have this tag are satisfactorily treated from a global perspective? That is plainly not true. Pcb21| Pete 18:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Should NPOV or factual accuracy dispute tags be put only on the talk page as well? 119 17:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Pcb21| Pete 18:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A tag 

message: "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" is listed as a distinct movie, but all three parts of the series were filmed continuously. Much like what happened with Tolkien's original manuscript, this movie was artificially separated into 3 parts strictly for marketing purposes. But when considering it qua artis, why maintain the synthetic separation? Would episodes 1-13 of "Flash Gordon in Space Soldiers" (a serial movie) each be considered as individual movies?
And I don't mean sequels should necessarily be considered unbroken extensions of the originals; but in the case of "Lord of the Rings", both the movie and the novel were created as single works and were separated after the fact. There are other cinematic instances of this aside from serial movies - from television mini-series like "Roots" to other iconic movies like "The Matrix Reloaded" and "The Matrix Revolutions", or "Back to the Future 2" and "Back to the Future 3".
I don't see why anyone but box office marketers should be constrained to consider movies only as commercial, cut-and-dry concepts -- especially given this new medium.
:It was planned as 3 movies, released as 3 movies, had 3 different titles, 3 different listings at IMDB, got different awards, were reviewed as 3 movies, etc...  It was 3 movies.  --Samuel Wantman 06:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What counts as a movie? 

message: Shrek 2, Finding Nemo, Snow White and 101 Dalmatians are all ANIMATIONS. Besides, only fools and children find them really funny (although Shrek 2 does have its moments). If anyone knows what the highest-grossing comedies actually are, please add them.
Localperson118 11:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the 'Comedy' section 

message: Should "Rules of the Game" be on this list?  Even though it's widely acclaimed, no one has showed evidence of it ever being considered the greatest ever.  2nd best isn't the best right?  In the French section though, could say something like "highest French Film on Sight and Sound's famous poll".  Also the list of the 10 highest grossing films (real and adjusted) should only show the top film (Titanic and Gone with the Wind), again, as this is for those who is or has been at the top.  The list of past highest grossing films make sense though. --Poorpete 16:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is value in listing "near misses", as long as the nearness of the miss is quantified. Pcb21| Pete 19:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Pcb21 (about this, not about Dirty Dancing), but I must admit my view is biased by the fact that I was the person who added Rules of the Game to this list.  My rationale was that over the years, whenever I have read an article about "the greatest films ever" they always included more than one film.  I was inspired to see Rules of the Game the first time because of an article about the "Sight and Sound" poll.  Anyone interested enough to read this article would probably want to know what the "runners up" to Citizen Kane were. -- Samuel Wantman 21:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, but leave a few of the highest grossing and the adjusted highest.  This illustrates the point that the highest grossing list is heavily biased towards recent films. -- Samuel Wantman 20:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Excellent work finding the citation Poorpete. It would be a real big win for this article if we can somehow get more non-Hollywood import. We also have the data for doing a inflation-adjusted worldwide (as opposed to mere American as we have now) top grossing films. Once we have that (and it would clearly be sans Harry Potter, then I think top 10 would be ok to keep. If you want just a link to top grossing, then that's fine, but its hardly as if this article is too long. Pcb21| Pete 22:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Trouble with finding a worldwide adjusted list, is there's no current agreement on how to set up such a standard.  As the US inflation can be calculated, the World's inflation would be hard to quantify.  I believe Boxofficemojo created the adjusted list by figuring out how many tickets were bough for a movie.  I wonder if there's such lists somewhere? --Poorpete 20:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Quite Best Ever

message: I'd like to move this page to a title that doesn't have the word LIST in it.  As this page evolves it is becoming more prose than list.  I think that is a good thing, and it should expand more in that direction.  I'm proposing some titles.  Can you react to them and add more possibilities?  Perhaps we can reach a concensus. -- Samuel Wantman 19:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having the word "considered" either in the title or text doesn't stop a free-for-all.  Opinionated cinemaphiles "consider" their selections to be the best too.  What keeps these lists in order is the clear description at the beginning, and all of us who remove films without citations. -- Samuel Wantman 22:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a rename, but fear that going for anything more radical than the third option will incur the wrath of those wikifiddlers who think they know what NPOV should mean, but don't, and get promptly moved again :) Pcb21| Pete 15:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: This is definitely more prose then list. "Movies that have been considered the greatest ever" sounds like the way to go to avoid the deletionists/NPOV crusaders. Just look what they're trying to do to List of the Great Boners of all time, an article in the same spirit as this one. - Pioneer-12 19:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we move this page? 

message: * This would be my vote. -- Samuel Wantman 19:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''[[Best movies of all time]]'''

message: **I'd vote for this one, a "list" can go without saying, but i think the word "considered" has to be in there to avoid a free-for all of opinionated cinemaphiles.  "Have been" is okay, as it allows films like the Bicycle Thief, although I wouldn't mind "Movies considered the greatest ever"   --Poorpete 19:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having the word "considered" either in the title or text doesn't stop a free-for-all.  Opinionated cinemaphiles "consider" their selections to be the best too.  What keeps these lists in order is the clear description at the beginning, and all of us who remove films without citations. -- Samuel Wantman 22:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a rename, but fear that going for anything more radical than the third option will incur the wrath of those wikifiddlers who think they know what NPOV should mean, but don't, and get promptly moved again :) Pcb21| Pete 15:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: This is definitely more prose then list. "Movies that have been considered the greatest ever" sounds like the way to go to avoid the deletionists/NPOV crusaders. Just look what they're trying to do to List of the Great Boners of all time, an article in the same spirit as this one. - Pioneer-12 19:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''[[Movies that have been considered the greatest ever]]'''

message: Ive consolidate the three animation sections into one. I removed Beauty and the Beast and Shrek because there were no cites as being the best.  I considered keeping the Anime section, but Spirited Away also qualifies as the favorite animation in an audience poll. The distinction between computer animated and hand drawn has long bothered me.  Both are the same genre, Beauty and the Beast was created using both technologies. -- Samuel Wantman 01:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidating the animation sections 

message: Why are some genres (action/adventure) missing? Is it because action films are generally considered to not be great films? I'm seen a lot of "greatest film" lists, and I've never seen an action film on that list. Is it because action films tend to not engage the brain? My suggestion is that we add in more movie genres to the list and list the great films that fall under those categories.
:The central tenet for this article is citability. If we can cite a "greatest action film" then great let's get it in. Seems like the kind of thing AFI might have done.
Here is another thing I'm not sure of: is a "great film", from a critic's viewpoint, a film that engages the mind? Or can pure entertainment be as equally important? In other words, can an action film that is immensely entertaining ever be considered great (Indiana Jones), or would it only be considered good; leaving the "great film" title for films that are more than just entertaining? This is all subjective of course, but what is the general criteria?
Perhaps it may help people like me to include a list of criterias for a great film (a list that most critics would agree upon).
:I agree a section discussing "common criteria", littered with a few choice quotes from people describing how they decide a film is great could be of great benefit to the article. Again citations remain paramount.
It should also be noted that films are subjective, and although the films listed below are considered great by most critics; most of them are from American cultures. Our culture affects what we believe to be a bad film or a good film. There are possibly some cultures outside of the U.S. which believe that Battlefield Earth is a great film! This should be explained in the article somewhere.
:Yes the cultural bias thing has been mentioned before. Ideally we need to get more input from other people who are familiar with other cultures and languages. Does Bollywood spawn greatest film lists for example? Pcb21| Pete 09:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Genres Missing? 

message: *Toy Story 2 was selected by IGN Filmforce's staff as the best animated film of all time on August, 2005, behind The Iron Giant and South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.
This entry in the animation section seems pretty questionable to me.  The article has been defined to include picks by critics, audiences and awards.  I don't quite see how staff pick of a gaming website qualifies.  Going down this path would lead to the staff at my local Starbucks adding their picks for the best Sci-Fi movie.  If IGN was a film site, and the staff were noted film critics, that would be a different story. Before removing this, I'd like to hear other opinions. -- Samuel Wantman 06:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IGN Staff picks... 

message: The LOTR mention as being the highest grossing "film project" seems forced.  Films made at once and release separately are rarities.  It might be better to talk about film series or film franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek, James Bond, Godfather, etc...)  I would guess that Star Wars is the highest grossing of these.  Even so, I'm not convinced it is worth mentioning. -- Samuel Wantman 07:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Film project" 

message: Because this film is so controversial, I feel the need to describe why I thought it belonged on the list of Best Documentaries.
First, Triumph gave its director major international recognition that no other similar film has done, and carries extremely high name recognition, even seventy years after it was made.  Pretty-much every major newspaper ran major obituaries when Riefenstahl died, and ALL of them mention the film with high praise.  Although all sane individuals disagree with its message, like Birth of a Nation it's famous for it's techniques.  (I challenge you to find me a major critic who says otherwise)  By contrast, most people can't name her other pioneering film, Olympia.  Second, is there a line between documentary and propaganda?  Triumph is usually described as both, and I noticed the Documentary catagory also contains the Michael Moore films Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, both of which are considered (especially the latter) propaganda.
Here's the praise I could find (Give me a critic and I'll dig up more): Roger Ebert called it a "great documentary"
and "by general consent [one] of the best documentaries ever made".   The Wall Street Journal called it "pioneering", "a mélange of documentary and propaganda" and "revolutionary in its cinematography and editing".    The New York Times said Triumph was a "daringly innovative documentary" and that it "deeply influenced later generations of documentary makers and television commercial makers."    The Guardian of Britain, while calling it a "documentary" also said Triumph was "renowned and reviled as the best propaganda film ever".    The Washington Post refered to it as an "the most effective Nazi propaganda of all time", an "overly long, but fascinating documentary", and "brilliantly shot and edited".    The Economist, said indirectly said "[its] filming and editing techniques both broke new ground, and many shots that now seem commonplace had never been seen before."  
However, because it is extremely controversial, I would be willing to have it moved under "German" cinema, perhaps in tandem with Fritz Lang, Werner Herzog, or Wolfgang Petersen. Palm_Dogg 11:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any complaint about the film's inclusion under Documentary — I generally concur with your argument — but you shouldn't have marked its addition as a minor change... KJBracey 12:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I just started editing this week, so my apologies. Palm_Dogg 13:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for documenting the reasons for its inclusion.  From what you have listed here and in the article, the only citation that seems to be on point is Ebert's, and he doesn't claim that it is the best documentary, but just ONE of the best.  I don't think that is sufficient.  I think there should be a citation that say it is considered THE BEST or perhaps THE SECOND BEST documentary ever made.  It seems that most of the citations say it is the best PROPAGANDA film ever made, and I would have no problem moving the entry to a new propaganda section.  I think it is important for this article to limit inclusion to films that can be directly cited for inclusion without editorial interpretation.  Being cited as the best propaganda film does not mean that it has been cited as the best documentary. -- Samuel Wantman 08:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I would be willing to have it moved under Greatest German Films (Which I still can't believe isn't on this page). Palm_Dogg 14:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were moved to the Germany section (which just was added), it should have a citation calling it the greatest GERMAN film.  My point is that the cites you have mentioned and the cites I have seen call it the greatest PROPAGANDA film, and not the greatest DOCUMENTARY nor the greatest GERMAN film.  I think it would be fine under a section called PROPAGANDA. -- Samuel Wantman 06:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, move it.  My only worry is that a Propaganda section is too escoteric for this page. Palm_Dogg 16:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Triumph of the Will''