Talk:List of films considered the best/Archive 4

message: Now, I think Terry Gillaim's Brazil is one of the greatest, and so do a lot of other people (see it's page). It's also on the IMDb 250. Does that make it worthy for this list? -Litefantastic 01:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please see the discussions above. At the very least, you should find some reputable people who have called it a "best" movie. IMDb 250 does not cut it, I'm afraid. Turnstep 03:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a bunch of citations, but they have all been deleted by people who disagreed--Scottandrewhutchins 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed most of them.  It wasn't because I disagree (on the contrary, Brazil it is one of my favorites).  The problem is that citations must say that the film was "the best sci-fi film", and the citation has to be a good one.  I left the Brattle Theatre quote, which seemed questionable to me because it was just one person's opinion.  Another person removed it because it was "a blog".  If we didn't take such a strict stand, the article would quickly fill up with everyone's favorite film. -- Samuel Wantman 05:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should be cited under U.K. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazil

message: There seems to be different views of how to order the films in the Genre and Nationality sections.  The main choices seem to be:
# List films that are critical picks first, then audience picks, then box office champs.
# List films in alphabetical order.
Are there any other choices? I'm partial to the first choice. -- Samuel Wantman 23:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to go alphabetically, since different people have different criteria. Is Roger Ebert a better critic than Stanley Kauffmann?  Does Sight and Sound matter more than the American Film Institute? It's too tough a call and invites chaos. Palm_Dogg 23:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering of films 

message: I don't edit this article, but I do frequent the 'worst films' article and I've proposed a name change over there to remove the "that have been" part from the article title, and some were wondering if we did, if the regulars over here would be willing to update this article to the same way.  That is, "Films considered the greatest ever".  Reason being is, I don't think the "that have been" part is actually needed to convey that these films have been considered the worst/greastest ever, and it doesn't even seem correct when one considers that recently released films or particularly infamous/famous films 'are' considered the worst/greatest ever for a period of time. Simply using the word 'considered' essentially conveys this without having to qualify it with "that have been", since a film has been officially been 'considered' whether it's Film E that was 'considered' the worst/greatest ever in 1973 or Film Z that is 'considered' the worst/greatest ever of 2005. Bottom line, the article titles don't necessarily need to contain "that have been" to be gramatically and POV compliant, it just makes them long.
For now, the worst films article will retain the "List of" at the title beginning, but I hope to convince the others (or do it myself w/o "permission") to update the format to be less alphabetical and boring and essentially mirror what you guys have got going over here (think, Star Trek mirror universe, lol), so that we could eventually simply have a consistent pairing of:
*Films considered the greatest ever
*Films considered the worst ever
Let me know what you all think, it should help us in deciding the fate of our article name, Thanks! Dannybu2001 18:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change Proposal November 2005 

message: This article's cousin article, List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever, is currently in the middle of a VfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever. If it is deleted, this article may soon be deleted as well, since the 'worst songs' article is nearly identical to List of films that have been considered the worst ever, which is nothing but the other side of the coin of this article. As such, some editors and other frequenters of this page may be interested in participating in the ongoing discussion there, and in casting your votes if you have an opinion on the matter. The vote will also likely affect Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever. -Silence 21:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Important: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever|Vote for Deletion]] underway

message: It Happened One Night won the "Oscar grand slam" by winning Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director and Best Screenplay.  Why is that particular combination considered the "grand slam"?  The first four - OK as they're of greatest interest to the public, but if IHON had won Best Cinematography rather than Best Screenplay, somebody would probably have said that that combination was the "grand slam".  Or of it had won only the first 4, that combination would have been dubbed "grand slam" by somebody.  This seems to be a rather arbitrary terminology that has no official status anywhere.  JackofOz 04:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oscar "Grand Slam"

message: Some of the top box office numbers are listed in GBP, rather than USD--shouldn't these all be in the same unit, probably USD, as they were made in the US?  Night Gyr 01:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed this as well.  Very strange mixing of units.  I wonder if we can get a source that will have them all in the same units as just converting them is probbly a bad idea given chanigng exchange rates. Dalf | Talk 22:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GBP in box office totals 

message: If I recall correctly, the channel4/filmfour poll counted not just Star Wars (A New Hope) as the greatest film, but it was the whole trilogy; I think the godfather trilogy came in neatly in second place. Can anyone confirm or deny? Y control 23:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films acclaimed in audience polls 

message: I've fairly ambivalent about moving this page... The thing I'm concerned with is consistency - here, we have Films that have been considered the greatest ever, but we have instead List of films that have been considered the worst ever. We really should decide on a format for these titles and stick to them. --Fangz 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We discussed the change from "List of..." to the current name when it looked like there was a move to make this more of an article than a list.  That change over is not complete (it did happen for the Academy Award section).  There was also talk about sections describing the criteria and processes that lead to films being considered "the best".  There was talk of trying to bring this article to featured status, and feedback that perhaps it was more article like than list.  Recently, the "worst" list talked about the same change.  If you look at the criteria for featured lists and featured articles, it seems that this page is closer to the article criteria.  What we really need at the top of this talk page is a list of unfinished tasks. -- Samuel Wantman 20:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moves... 

message: Deep Throat - (1972), directed by Gerard Damiano and starring Linda Lovelace. Not exactly conventional 'romance', but it was highly rated by the critics upon it's release and is still considered a highly influential example of it's genre. Said to have been one of President Richard Nixon's favourite films.
It is tempting to add a section for "adult films", but something tells me it wouldn't be well-recieved. :) Palm_Dogg 04:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep Throat 

message: The reasoning behind the inclusion of Toy Story 2 escapes me.  What is said is that it is included based on it being #1 at Rotten Tomatoes.  However, it is important to note that, which it has 100% on the tomatometer, there are so many other films that do.  The only reason that it is on top is that it has a higher number of reviews than any of the others, while still retaining 100%.  For films that have 100%, though, it is far from having the highest average vote rating (on 10).  As an example, The Wizard of Oz, which is #6 on the list but only has half the total number of individual reviews, has an average rating of 9.2/10.  Toy Story 2 has 8.5/10 on the same scale.  Clearly this does not express the views of those rating the film, but rather in inherent problems of simply relying on the Tomatometer for gauging film ratings.  It is a popularity indicator, not a quality indicator.  For this reason, I have removed Toy Story 2.  –Comics (Talk) 04:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toy Story 2 

message: The Godfather is listed as being top for a number of years, yet its gross is only $134m, which is less than that of some previous films.  Perhaps this has to do with growth curves and one case of a re-release.  I don't know, but as it now looks, it is either wrong or unclear. Kdammers 11:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  By Year Best 

message: As box office is here interpreted, it means money. Another way of looking at box office is to look at number of viewers or seats sold.  This would give a much different list, with many Indian films crowding out many U.S. films.  I don't know if the appropriate data are available, but I'd consider them more appropriate than money (which should probably, truthfully, include popcorn, etc. sales). Kdammers 03:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box Office definition 

message: The text reads: "Blade Runner - Based on the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, it wasn't popular with North American audiences, but it gained international acclaim and ...."
Yet according to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bladerunner.htm, domestic sales total $$27,580,111 ($31+ of $34+ million dmoestic life-time;  international n.a.).  True, it cost $28= million to make, but according to http://movies.go.com/boxoffice?cat=1982 it was 27th for the year (U.S.), apparently ahead of Airplane II and Road Warrior.  Thus, I think the wording "wasn't popoular" is too strong. Kdammers 05:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SF -Blade Runner 

message: Before we repeat the past, please read some of the previous discussions about this topic. -- Samuel Wantman 20:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  F 9/11 - documentary or propaganda? 

message: Uh why is star wars not on the fantasy list?
: The main (admittedly weak) reason is that most people who do the considering consider it science fiction. Ask yourself this: If you ran a Blockbuster and corporate (which doesn't allow you to make your own custom genre sections) wanted to push Star Wars DVDs, would you put them in the science fiction or the fantasy section?
 
: Another angle: You could argue that it takes place "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" and has a strong "magical theme", so it's a fantasy. Many would agree with you. I'd argue it's more science fiction than not. It's got the Force and spirits and all things mystical. We could collectively call this stuff magic and have ourselves a genuine (hard "i") fantasy. But then TPM went into the whole bit about cellular mitochlorians and gave the Force a (bad) scientific basis. That lumps the Force with Star Wars' faster than light travel and Lucas' dialog as things in the franchise our society has not come to grips with yet. 
 --Happylobster 12:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Wars

message: Modern times is not a silent film. If anything it belongs in comedy.
The current version of this has the following:
:Modern Times, the last major American film to make use of silent film conventions such as title cards for dialogue, is the highest-rated silent film on the IMDb. There is a recorded soundtrack, a scene with dialogue spoken over an intercom and Charlie Chaplin sings nonsense lyrics to a song at the end. City Lights, another of Chaplin's films, is the highest-rated movie without any dialogue, spoken or sung. It too has a recorded soundtrack. Metropolis is the highest-rated movie that was totally silent when released. However, IMDb viewers most likely watched the restored version which has a recorded soundtrack. 
I'd like to modify it to the following:
:Modern Times, the last major American film to make use of silent film conventions such as title cards for dialogue (it had a soundtrack used for a couple of key scenes), is the highest-rated silent film on the IMDb. 
:Metropolis is the highest-rated truly silent movie on IMDB.
(And I disagree that Metropolis is highly rated because of the sound version. It was highly appreciated long before that version came out. The reference is unnecessary. )
If nobody disputes the changes above, I will apply them. --Happylobster 16:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original version does not say that Metropolis is highly rated because of the sound version.  It is just making it clear that it was a totally silent film when released (albeit, often there was live music at performances).  When I wrote this section, it seemed unfair to either not mention Modern Times and City Lights or not mention Metropolis.  I decided to mention all three and distinguish the differences between them.  Modern Times does have dialogue and singing and the music soundtrack is not just for a couple of scenes, it is in the entire movie.  I don't see an advantage to removing the details about these three movies.  If you want to make it clearer that Metropolis is not highly rated because of the soundtrack, I would not object, though as I said, I don't interpret the paragraph that way.  To be fair, the IMDB voters were comparing silent films WITH soundtracks, and it seems unreasonable to mention Metropolis without mentioning City Lights which, when last I checked, was rated higher than Metropolis. -- Samuel Wantman 09:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's too much detail compared to the rest of the entries. Maybe a footnote for City Lights? --Happylobster 13:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silent Films 

message: Okay, I'm new here but there's a problem at your page which I frequent and I added the Fantasy part to the genre since I felt it was misrepresented. But someone keeps adding Brokeback Mountain in the genre list under Gay-themed, a genre not recognized by either academia or pop culture. So can someone please put a pill on this and check it out. It's irritating having to delete it every day. —This unsigned comment was added by Artihcus022 (talk • contribs) .
:I've been around here for a while and I do not agree with your opinion and find it irritating to have to revert the deletion, so let's discuss it.  There have been comments with the reversions, and the deletion was reverted by more than one person.  I reverted it once, because it followed the guidelines of the page, and the precedent of past discussions.  The citation says that it was "voted the greatest gay-themed film ever by The Advocate magazine."  Academia DOES recognize LGBT film as a genre.  I know that there are classes in the subject at SFSU and other institutions, as well as books on the subject, and film festivals.  Perhaps pop culture does not recognize it where you live, but where I live (San Francisco) it is quite recognized and popular. -- Samuel Wantman 09:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to side with Sam on this one, but don't you think you should either rename the category "LGBT", or list other, better, (in this straight, conservative user's opinion) films like Philadelphia or La Cage aux Folles? :) Palm_Dogg 13:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If the genre is not listed and described on Cinematic genre, it should not be listed here regardless of whether references can be provided for it. (As a corollary, if valid and noteworthy references can be provided for it, it should probably be added to and described at "cinematic genre" before we discuss adding it here.) I agree with you that citations and verifiability are by far the most important criterion here, but even if some people use "gay" as a genre, that doesn't mean that everyone (or even most people) do; if I could find two sources that listed "black-themed" as a genre, would that be sufficient to include Roots as one of the best "black-themed films" ever in a general, wide-spanning list like this? Of course not. In fact, I'm very tempted to say that one of our criteria for including a genre on this page should be that that genre has its own full-fledged article on Wikipedia, as without that, it's very possible for fringe and quasi-noteworthy genres to creep into this list and cause bloat and inconsistencies. But again, as I said, I wouldn't at all object to a (referenced) inclusion of Brokeback Mountain in "romance" or "western" genres. -Silence 19:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Grouping by period or country (American films of the 1930s), by director or star or producer or writer or studio, by technical process (CinemaScope films), by cycle (the 'fallen women' films), by series (the 007 movies), by style (German Expressionism), by structure (narrative), by ideology (Reaganite cinema), by venue ('drive-in movies'), by purpose (home movies), by audience ('teenpix'), by subject or theme (family film, paranoid-politics movies). (Bordwell 1989, 148)
It seems that audience groupings should be added to the list of Cinematic genre. The article seems by no means comprehensive of ALL genre, but more exemplary in nature.  I have no problem with adding many audience groupings as genres, teenpix, black exploition films, LGBT, etc... These films should be listed wherever the CITATION claims they are the best.  Otherwise, we'll end up with too many subgenres; the best LGBT, Western; the best Black Teen Epic, etc...  -- Samuel Wantman 07:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The IMDB does not say which films they consider "gay themed", so if you use the criteria that it has to be have a main-character who is gay, I don't think it would be Dog Day.  It would probably be American Beauty which is higher rated.  So the IMDB is a tricky citatation.  The citation for Brokeback is missing, and normally I would remove a film without a citation, but in this case the claim seems extremely likely to be correct, so I think we should let it stand unless it is shown that the claim is not correct.  I think critical approval of a film by winning way more awards than any other of it type is about the best reason to include a film on this list.  The problem is that the claim has to be verifiable, and it is often very difficult to verify this claim.  I suspect that eventually a citation will be found.  It seems likely that someone else will write that "Brokeback has won more awards than any other gay film" and then we can point to the claim.  In the mean time, perhaps some language describing the fuzziness of the genre should be added to the section. -- Samuel Wantman 08:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, a bona fide list of the "The 50 Greatest LGBT films" has finally arrived! It has clearly-stated and reasonable definitions and criteria, is broadly-enough based and professionally administered to be taken seriously (courtesy of Logo, the LGBT TV channel), is gay viewer-driven rather than critic-anointed or advert-co-opted. And guess which film it says is rated #1? So y'all (not you Sam) need to stop insisting nobody out there considers LBGT film a genre, include it in the text already, and let's move on. Lethiere 09:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay-themed genres

message: What does this mean: is it the films that are widely loved that happen to come from the named countries, or films that happened to be beloved in those nations? I ask because, while I know Kurosawa is regarded as the best Japanese director virtually everywhere else, his films seem to be reviled in Japan itself, and yet three of his films show up on the list. elvenscout742 00:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is either/or.  What you've said would be a good addition to the section about Japan, along with the films that ARE considered the best Japanese films in Japan (cited, of course). -- Samuel Wantman 02:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  By country? 

message: The current version of this page has an image of the Hoop Dreams DVD cover apropos of nothing. Jonathan F 01:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this odd too. But I do know that Ebert listed it as one of the best movies of the 1990s (I think it was #1). --Andland 16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Hoop Dreams''

message: Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Love Story gross two-hundred million dollars in the 1970s? Adjusted for inflation this would be about nine-hundred-million today, placing it at about #4 on the list of highest grossing.209.169.114.213 01:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the IMDB it grossed $106,400,000 in the USA. -- Samuel Wantman 07:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Love Story

message: Candidate for inclusion under the banner of one of the greatest science fiction movies made. Please consider the following:
* "The movie that inspired Terry Gilliam's 12 Monkeys, Chris Marker's La jetée is a landmark of science-fiction filmmaking, a 28-minute masterpiece told almost entirely in still frames." Jason Enkeny, All Movie Guide, at http://www.allmovie.com
*"One of the finest science fiction films ever made, Chris Marker's La jetée is a brilliant philosophical treatise packed into 28 minutes of film." Jonathan Crow, All Movie Guide, at 
http://www.allmovie.com
*La Jetee voted one of the "100 Best Films of the 20th Century" in the Village Voice newspapers First Annual Film Critics' Poll. Fifty or more distinguished film critics, including Molly Haskell, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Andrew Sarris and others, were asked to vote in this film poll. See http://www.filmsite.org/villvoice.html
*"Constructed solely from the hero's voice-over narration and a series of black-and-white stills (save for one indelible moving image), La Jetée remains one of the most startling and haunting films to ever fall under the banner of science fiction." Jason Anderson, 28/11/02, Eye Weekly, at http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_11.28.02/film/marker.html
*"Shot by one of the French New Wave's most eccentric talents (think of the implications of that), Chris Marker, La Jetée is a 30-minute black-and-white short that is easily one of the most influential science fiction films of the last 50 years. A cited source for 12 Monkeys, the short is also a clear influence on the Terminator films." Louis Black, 4/12/1999, The Austin Chronicle, at http://www.filmvault.com/filmvault/austin/l/lajete1.html
*"Chris Marker's 1962 short film La Jetée (1962) is probably best known today as the inspiration for Terry Gilliam's 1995 film 12 Monkeys. Some also consider it an influence on other popular time-travel films such as the Terminator series. Most serious critics acknowledge that Marker's film is vastly superior to any of its imitators in its brilliant use of still images and sparse narration to construct a story which is both compelling and haunting." Sander Lee, Senses of Cinema, at http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/4/jetee.html
*""La Jetee" speaks to issues around time and memory, but this film is much more accessible -- and thrilling. (It inspired Terry Gilliam to make "12 Monkeys.") The bittersweet music, the narrator's steady voice that sounds like a scientist's, the museum-quality photos, and the gripping plot all make "La Jetee" an inimitable experience. This is Marker's masterpiece." Jonathan Curiel, 21/11/03, San Franciso Chronicle, at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/21/DDGD336G2N1.DTL
*"La Jetée’s elliptic opening and closing scene display the same action from two perspectives, seen simultaneously by a man near the beginning and end of his life. It is the preeminent rendition of a classic paradox, and it is a science-fiction film stripped to its bare essence, its science." Rumsey Taylor, Rumsey Taylor, Not Coming to Theatres Near You, at http://www.notcoming.com/reviews.php?id=116
*See section on Chris Marker and La Jetée in The Ten Best Science Fiction Film Directors, by Jeremy Adam Smith, 19/04/2004, Strange Horizons, at http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040419/directors.shtml
 
*Called "very possibly the greatest science fiction movie yet made" by critic Pauline Kael. See http://www.cinematheque.bc.ca/archives/time.html
*"La Jetee, the science-fiction film about time and memory after a nuclear apocalypse, was released in 1964 and is considered by many critics to be among the greatest experimental films ever made." See Amazon UK synopsis, at http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0942299671/203-4539040-2741505
Thanks. Dingodangodongo 08:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding all the citations.  The problem with all these quotes is that they do not definitively state that it is "the best sci-fi movie ever made".  Most of them say "among the best".  If we used "among the best" to be the criteria for inclusion on this list we would have virtually every very good film ever made listed.  The best citation above is Pauline Kael's but she hedges by saying "very possibly", and the quote is 40 years old.  I'd like to hear some other opinions as this seems borderline to me. --Samuel Wantman 00:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''La Jetee'', by Chris Marker (1962)

message: Why is Birth of a Nation here? I'm curious how it could be considered one of the greatest movies ever.--66.218.24.154 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it still is, though I am of the camp that it is poor melodrama in addition to being one of the most virulently racist films ever made.  It looks like it was removed in the overhaul, so that's a good thing. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this here? 

message: I added Central Station and Deus e o Diabo na Terra do Sol. This last one's entry, however, needs citations that I didn't have time to look for, though I sure of what I'm talking about. The reasons are that City of God is a mediocre movie and it being the only one here is an afront to Brazil's Cinema. Central Sation, nevertheless, is also barely one of the top-ten, but reaches the Academy Award criteria to be put. So, basicaly, we have an OSCAR movie, a pop movie, and a masterpiece cult movie. Anyhow, as Deus e o Diabo is very revolutionary, and terrible for those who don't like Cinema Novo, maybe another title should be added.
I would appreciate help here looking for critics' and filmmakers' citations, and selecting the best Brazilian films.
--El Chemaniaco 00:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazilian Cinema

message: 'March of the Penguins', in the documentary section. It won best documentary Oscar in 2005.
Does that suffice to add it to the list?
GregCovey 01:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, as there have been dozens of films to have won that award. - SimonP 13:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: March of the Penguins

message: Before I begin I would like to say that I am searching for citation that is needed for Aladdin to be included in the list.
Anyway I believe Mary Poppins should be in it's list because it's like Beauty and the Beast, the only one under its genre to be nominated for Best Picture in the Academy Awards, its genre is human actors interacting with cartoon characters, yes the interaction was only like for 15 minutes but still they interacted with cartoon characters and puts it in the same genre as Who Framed Rogerr Rabit or Space Jam. DaffyDuck619
::What about the Lord of the Rings? Gollum, and several other characters, were animated. - SimonP 13:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Poppins Should Be There

message: I don't understand how Empire Strikes Back is considered the "best sequel ever" when The Godfather Part II is regarded as better than its original, which in turn is considered the best in any genre. I think the line should be removed. Anyone else agree? --Happylobster 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Empire Strikes Back vs. Godfather II as best sequel

message: I want to move this page to "List of Best Ever Films."  Wikipedia convention is to start list pages with "List of..." so that part is easy.  It would be nice to start with "List of Films..." so the page could be alphabetized under "F" but "List of Best Ever whatever" would be a good way to alphabetize all "Best Ever" pages (remember you can ignore "List of " in terms of alphabetizing so it starts with a "B").  I'm trying to start List of Best Ever Anime and I'd like to follow a clear naming convention. - Peregrinefisher 08:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already difficult to keep everyone's favorite films off this list.  This article does not claim that these ARE the best films, but that they are CONSIDERED the best.  It is an article about opinions.  I think the "have been considered" helps make that clearer.  Also, there is much more prose in this article than most lists, and if you check the archives there has been discussion about adding more prose, to make this read more like an article.  The Academy Award section is written this way, and I think the rest of the article would be improved if there was more prose.  There should be discussion about why some films get considered great while others fade into obscurity, what critics like in movies and why, what audiences like and why, etc...  So I don't see a need to move the article, and I can see disadvantages. -- Samuel Wantman 21:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move from FTHBCTGE to "List of Best Ever Films"

message: Is there any evidence this book exists? I can understand a book not being on Amazon or eBay, but legally a copy of every book published in Australia has to be placed in the National Library of Australia, but there is no copy of it there. Until there is some way to double check the contents of this book, it can't be considered a verifiable source. Daffy, since you have a copy of the book could you provide more information such as the author and publisher? - SimonP 11:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian book ''Greatest Films of All Time''

message: I mean Shrek 2 did make more money than the others listed in the section (and Aladdin) but it's not in there. As well as Bruce Almighty made more money than the others listed in the section. Yet they're both not listed.
But listed in other sections ARE the highest grossing in that category.
So what gives?!
: Please bring this to your talk page, Daffy. --Happylobster 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sure you do! It's the one that suggests you're currently acting as a sock puppet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:203.25.140.101). For all of your enthusiasm, you'd actually be appreciated if you played nice with others. --Happylobster 05:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are some of the highest grosing films there but others aren't 

message: Are there any sources that rank movies according to the (estimated) number of tickets sold instead of by the amount of money they grossed?  If so, this would perhaps be a more informative assessment of a film's "greatness", since it does not have to be adjusted for inflation. — Loadmaster 19:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be some source.  I think it was William K. Everson who was assessing success of silent films over contemporary films using this method.  --Scottandrewhutchins 16:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box Office Gross vs. Tickets Sold 

message: I side with the anonymous editor that took out the entries for South Park and Shrek based on ticket sales, and recommend extending that to any other entries in this list because of their box office take. This list is for the "greatest" films, which suggests a critical standard rather than one based on sales. Otherwise, many lousy films that got to number one are more deserving on this page than better films with limited distribution. Maybe there should be a page or an elaboration about box office. But I don't think it belongs here. Does anyone else agree? --Happylobster 12:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Box office has absolutely nothing to do with being "great". --Scottandrewhutchins 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed all mention of box office from the article.  I think it reads much better now.  Most of the information can be found at the links noted at the top of the article.  What is now missing from any article is the box office champs for specific genres or countries.  I considered leaving that information here, but I think it would be better placed in the linked articles about box office champs. -- Samuel Wantman 03:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Box Office = Greatness? 

message: Where is a discussion on NPOV that justifies the neutrality flag on the page? I'm going to remove the flag unless someone can explain. Thanks. --Happylobster 19:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the flag. --Happylobster 16:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Why are there no nouvelle vague films listed?  A list of great French cinema needs to have some mention of Godard.  There ought to be mention of Cocteau as well. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't presume to know anything about French New Wave. But by its own definition on the Wikipedia page, it isn't even a movement, let alone a defined genre. So I'd argue you can't just put up "best French New Wave film" as a genre on this page and, for example, select what ranks highest amongst the films in IMDB (agreed?). If there's a specific film that can objectively (not subjectively) be called "the best" against others within its genre/nationality (or a higher standard if you're going to suggest it doesn't fit a genre), then it should definitely be included. --Happylobster 14:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: France

message: Barring any serious objections, I'd like to change the name of this article to simply Films considered the greatest ever (see discussion above). This not only sounds better, but aligns the page with other similar ones. Turnstep 02:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me.--Happylobster 15:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Done! Turnstep 15:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: Not my choice. But based on the criteria we use, does Toy Story 2's high ranking at rottentomatoes.com give it similar prestige The Godfather has on IMDB? --Happylobster 14:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no way.  There are over 100 other films with a 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes.  SubSeven 02:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I essentially agree. But none of the other 100% films has as many critics supporting it at #1. It's a weak argument, but a valid one. --Happylobster 02:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few would probably argue that, but of course the larger number of reviews is just a function of Toy Story being a recent, major release.  There's no way for an older film like Chinatown to rack up 100+ RT-approved reviews no matter how good it is.  I could buy a #1 overall ranking on Metacritic as a qualification for this article, but RT just doesn't work in my opinion. SubSeven 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Toy Story 2 Best Film Ever?

message: I always read that Nanook of the North, the silent documentary on an eskimo family was the first modern documentary and, "to many people", still the best, setting the way of forecoming films. I will search authorities on this later, but I'd like to know others' opinion on this. Nazroon 04:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a scam.  It's all staged.  The guy who played Nanook, who died of starvation a few years later, had more than one wife (which Flaherty deliberately obscured) and thought the record biting scene was stupid, but did it anyway out of friendship with Flaherty. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanook, documentary 

message: Anybody else have an opinion?  I notice there's an edit war happening about the IMDB list.  It would help to discuss the issue here. -- Samuel Wantman 20:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Top 10: Shorter the page, the better. --Happylobster 16:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's the problem.  There are many comprehensive lists of "best films".  We already mention a couple.  This article is meant to be a summary of all those lists.  We have to decide how many to include here.  Certainly, we can't include the entire list, and there really isn't any reason to, because the complete list is linked.  So collectively we have to decide how many to include.  My view on this is that listing the top film is always ok.  A brief mention of a #2 spot is warranted if the film would not be mentioned otherwise, and the list is comprehensive (all of a genre), and as many as 10 if it is a list that includes every film and the list itself is notable (IMDB, a respected critic, etc...)  If we don't limit the article to "the best", it will quickly fill with too much information.  Sometimes more is too much. -- Samuel Wantman 22:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDB Top 10 or Top 25? 

message: The Lord of the Rings was filmed in New Zealand, and directed by a New Zealander, with much of the special effects rendered at the New Zealand Weta Studios. On what basis do you define a film's "nationality"?
: Where is it definied as an American film on the page? If you wanted a criteria, you might account for where it's made (majority in New Zealand) or where it made most of its money (majority in the U.S.). I would argue that with most commercially successful films with international distribution, that it doesn't claim any nationality at all (which is how it's represented in the current page). --Happylobster 15:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord of the Rings under American films? 

message: Should one be added?  And what would be included in it?  The Godfather is ranked the #1 drama on IMDb. Made of people 01:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Drama film]]s not a category? 

message: (source: IMDb.com.)
1. 	The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)    	109
2. 	Sideways (2004)                                         	92
3. 	American Beauty (1999)                                  	88
4. 	Titanic (1997)                                          	87
5. 	Brokeback Mountain (2005)                               	76
6. 	Wo hu cang long (2000)                                  	74
7. 	The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)	72
8. 	L.A. Confidential (1997)                                	70
9. 	Lost in Translation (2003)                              	68
10.	Schindler's List (1993)                                 	68
I removed this entire section.  I looked around IMDB and did not find this list anywhere.  The citation only goes to the main page of the site.  If this data was compiled from their information by the editor that added it here, how do we verify its accuracy?  If it was compiled by the IMDB, where is the link to the data?
Even if it was compiled by the IMDB, how do we know that these statistics are complete?  Does the IMDB make any claims about this data?  Do they claim that these are the top ten award winners, or do they just say that these are the top 10 films for the data they currently have in their database.  If the latter, I'm not sure we should be including this data.
I'd be supportive of returning this to the article if the data was collated by the IMDB and they make a claim about the table's accuracy and meaning. -- Samuel Wantman 20:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films with the most awards 

message: This tag was just added to this talk page.  I'm moving it down here because this article used to have many photos.  There used to be film posters illustrating each section.  They were all removed because they did not fit the fair use guidelines.  I'm not sure what other illustrations would make sense for this article, so putting this tag on the top of the talk page would only incite the same conflict about adding and removing film posters. -- Samuel Wantman 21:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos requested

message: I have just added a new section and A Better Tomorrow as that was second best of that list to another film that is from China, I am not sure if the other HK film Infernal Affairs can be considered for the list as that seems to be highest on the IMDB top 250 to this date ranked at 242. Willirennen 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hong Kong 

message: Very surprised that there still isn't sections for either Action or Adventure (or both together). But please, try to find references to something other than the freaking IMDB, as it is infamous for being easily manipulated. When Serentiy came out, "Firefly" fans flooded the board to goose its rankings. RoyBatty42 22:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Action/Adventure

message: Are you kidding me? best western ever? no fucking way
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.85.109 (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Dances With Wolves''

message: - Reading up on the history of this page Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was put in there but kept getting put out for some reason.   
- Now I for one agree with DaffyDuck619 that being the most iconic children's movie is eligible for inclusion, children's movies fall in every category.   
- Now that source he provided might not be reliable BUT I think we should make an exception (for it has many people's opinions on the movie and many people saying it is the most iconic children's movie of all time), they're USER reviews so of course they'll be USER submitted where do you think they come from Roger Ebert's bum.   
- So what do you think, should being the most iconic children's movie of all time make it eligible for greatest film of all time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.140.101 (talk • contribs) 
:The criteria for this list can be met in several different ways. If Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is what you claim, then finding sources that confirm this shouldn't be that difficult. Until then, it needs to stay out of the article. CovenantD 01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI, the anonymous user has been banned for being a sockpuppet. -- Samuel Wantman 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Would that fact be able to put it back in the list

message: Lage Raho Munnabhai in NOT a musical (though it has songs like any/most other Indian films). It is a comedy. It is wrong to classify it as a Musical.
202.54.36.130 06:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be true, I don't know anything about this film.  However, it does appear atop the IMDB list of musicals.  It is not up to us to decide if it is a musical, just to cite whether it has been called the greatest musical ever, and the citation shows that it has. -- Samuel Wantman 06:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Musicals

message: Rocky does not belong here.  See the review of reputable critics like Vincent Canby or Andrew Sarris.  It's derivative crap. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rocky fits within the loose interpretation of what qualifies for a best movie, regardless of what one or two experts might say. The 8th place listing for IMDB is silly (though others allow for a second or third best...why stop at an 8th?). But sportsinmovies.com places it first, and on that criteria, it's a best sports film. It's place relies solely on whether that website is reputable enough. --Happylobster 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see evidence that it is reputable.  It looks like a new site, created mostly as a vehicle for advertising.  I could not find any information other than lists of films.  There is no explanation of the ratings, other than it being from users of the site.  I suspect there is a very low sampling, as there are many zero's and fives on the list. For example, this list has several films rated zero that are quite good.  That implies that there are no votes for these films.  Links to sites such as this one are basically spam.  I'm removing all mention of sportsinmovies.com unless there is evidence that it is reputable. -- Samuel Wantman 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that sportsinmovies.com does not look reputable. However, Rocky did win Best Picture and Best Director Academy Awards. Certainly this alone does not quailify it as Best Movie, but it is not unreasonable that it could be considered best sports film. Maybe if I can find a better citation. TK421 17:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rocky

message: Why are there no Godard films on the list, even under France? He is one of the most acclaimed filmmakers of all time. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is because nobody contributing to this page has found a Godard film with a citation calling it "the best xxx film".  This might be because nobody has looked for it.  If you can find such a citation, add the film to the appropriate section.  There are many films that are "one of the most acclaimed" and many directors that are "one of the most acclaimed".  However this list is about "the best", and not our opinions about what are the best, but the verifiable opinions of others.  -- Samuel Wantman 18:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jean-Luc Godard]]

message: I am a film major and I just actually did a study on "greatest film" lists.  Taking into account IMDB, NSFC, Sight and Sound, Time Magazine's top 100, and Eyewitness Film Book's list I was curious as to what films they all shared as well as top films by director, country.  It serves to help my curiosity because it would be obvious which films I need to see, etc.  There was only 6 that they share: Singin' In the Rain, Metropolis, Godfathers I and II, Lawrence of Arabia, the 400 Blows, and Citizen Kane.  While I don't think my study should be quoted as a source at all, I think since those films are on all five of my samples, they should be included in some context.
:Include them.  If you follow the guidelines at the top of this page, it won't be original research to list the films. -- Samuel Wantman 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[My Study]]

message: I believe this should be under Bangladesh, not India, right?
Imran 01:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Apu Trilogy is also listed under India. Pather Panchali is the first film in the Apu Trilogy, so I think one or the other should be listed (under Bangladesh). Imran 01:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The film was made in West Bengal, which is part of India. -- Samuel Wantman 01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the clarification. Imran 02:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pather Panchali]]