criterionforum.org

Any chance there will be top ten lists for the years before 2009?

I view the decades list projects as covering that ground much better than this does. (For example, here are the forum's favorite films released between 2000 and 2009, though at the point that that was compiled, several great films from 2009 hadn't had much of a chance to be seen yet.) I think of this thread as more of a stopgap until we have a chance to tackle these more recent years in a lists project, at which point I may be inclined to stop tracking changes for older years that aren't changing much anymore.

Just so everyone knows, the next update to this thread (on the 30th) will be the last for the year, at which point I'll do the following:

1. Any list of less than 10 films in the 2013 thread will no longer be counted.
2. Any top 10 list in the 2013 thread that has not been updated on or after the last Friday of October will only be partially counted. (I'll basically count one film for every month we were through the year when you last updated.)
3. I will "freeze" the results for 2012 and prior years. This means that all updates for these years during 2014 will show the change in position from year-end 2013. I won't freeze the 2013 results until after the Oscars in February.

If you want your 2013 list to fully count for this next update, just make sure that it includes 10 films and that it has been edited recently. If you haven't updated in months but your list stands as is, either edit your post or PM me to indicate this. There is not necessarily any rush to do this though. If your list doesn't qualify to be fully counted now but you edit it months down the line to comply, I'll count it again at that time.

First post updated. Get a good look at all the changes during 2013 for prior years, because they'll be going away with the next update.

Early 2014 question: Are we going to consider the two parts of Nymphomaniac separate films or will they have one slot on this list?

I'm hesitant to tell people that they have to fill out their individual top 10s a certain way. I assume some kind of consensus will emerge about whether both parts are worthy to be combined together (if the film is even that good to begin with). I would then just count every kind of vote (for Part I, Part II, or the two combined) as a separate film.

I'm not trying to establish some sort of edict, just would like to fashion my list to suit this thread if I can.

My intent is to fashion this thread to suit the lists, so it may even be the case that I can't decide how to treat it here until I see how people are treating it there. You should just list it whichever way feels right to you.

Assuming I like it enough to list I'll be voting on it as one film

First post updated. Results for 2013 are now "frozen," i.e. any subsequent changes throughout the year will be displayed as the change since 3/2/14.

Also, just for the record, I'm only counting votes for The Grand Budapest Hotel from posts that have been edited since it became available to see.

First post updated. One small new thing I've started to do: For 2013 and older years, the changes I'm showing are cumulative throughout the whole year. To make it easier to see which films have newly charted just during this latest update, I've highlighted the word "NEW" in blue.

Nymphomaniac a 2013 film? Pshaw

It got a non-festival Christmas '13 release in Denmark, one of its countries of origin. Them's the rules. (Feel free to include it on your own 2014 list though, of course.)

How would people feel if I started only counting lists for a particular year submitted by people who were actually members during that year? It's not that big of a deal for me to enter these new lists, but the end result is that older years (i.e. 2009-2011) in the first post of this thread keep showing activity that primarily relates to new members adding lists as opposed to old members reevaluating their lists.

Or do people like seeing how the rankings change as new people join the forum?

I love the first idea, and I wouldn't say that if it seemed that new members were bringing something interesting to the party. But if a new list with some of the top films plus like, a Bond film is posted, I don't see why that has to be factored in...

By design we may not be the friendliest or most inclusive of forums, but I don't like the message this sends to new posters and seems like the early steps down the spiral of overly exclusive behavior which can kill even the heartiest of discussion forums

I'll agree with Dom. They aren't doing anything bad and to be honest it sounds like too much work for you Mods anyway.

I'm not sure what that "Mods" comment is supposed to mean. The only thing that I was proposing to do (simply not tallying lists that people submit related to years that happened before they were members) would be less work. And new members' lists for current and future years would count just like anyone else's, so it wouldn't be that exclusive.

But I'm fine doing it either way.

I say we take a trophy from any new member who wants to post here: An ear, a toe, anything that won't grow back on its own

swo17 wrote:I'm not sure what that "Mods" comment is supposed to mean. The only thing that I was proposing to do (simply not tallying lists that people submit related to years that happened before they were members) would be less work. And new members' lists for current and future years would count just like anyone else's, so it wouldn't be that exclusive.

But I'm fine doing it either way.

Der, I thought we were still going by that lock rule.

I've changed my mind

Based on the IMDB rule isn't the Immigrant a 2013 film?

The general rule we're using here is "first non-festival release in the country of origin, per IMDb." The first such date I see on that film's IMDb page is 16 May 2014.

It opened in France last year, though. I mean, I think US release should always be the barometer, so that's fine, I just don't get it I guess

domino harvey wrote:It opened in France last year, though. I mean, I think US release should always be the barometer, so that's fine, I just don't get it I guess

IMDb only lists it as a U.S. production, so I'm going by the U.S. release date. If any of the countries where it opened in 2013 had also been listed in the "Country" section of the film's IMDb page, then I would have classified it as a 2013 film.