| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
 Posted - 07/03/2008 : 00:47:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
A qualitative list is inherently pointless, as it doesn't agree with my or your personal tastes.
Lists such as those at IMDb are qualitative to a significant extent, as voters give a qualitative score. I like them a lot more than simple popularity lists as they do actually coincide to a large extent with my own tastes. I find the IMDb score extremely useful. |
 |
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 01:19:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
...but what better objective criterion for the quality of a film can there be than the total enjoyment it has provided?
It certainly does measure "how much enjoyment has this movie caused", but I don't think it's the same as quality at all. By that measure Spiderman 3 is a 'better' movie than The Bothersome Man as infinitely more people saw it and enjoyed it. This had little to do with quality, but is a reflection of the fact that S3 is in English, made in the USA, had A-list stars, and was heavily marketed. I bet S3 would be higher on any public-participation list of favourite movies than The Bothersome Man.
Whereas at IMDb:-
Spiderman 3: 103,000 voters, 15,000 voters scoring 10/10, Average score 6.6
The Bothersome Man:1800 voters, 330 scoring 10/10, Average score 7.4
Clearly S3 was more widely distributed and liked by more people, but those who saw The Bothersome Man (and scored it at IMDb) on average rated it higher than those who saw S3.
Anyway, I find "average quality ratings" much more useful than "number of people who saw a movie and liked it". |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 01:31:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
I have always found Sight & Sound's list, updated every ten years since 1952, of interest.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/
I prefer the Director's list (from 2002) to the Critics list. 
But I still fail to see what's so great about Citizen Kane. Is it that it's generally agreed Kane is the 'greatest' movie ever, or could it be that critics/directors don't have the balls to drop it down the list a few places?  |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 01:34:55
|
I have consciously left out one non-enjoyment variable in this discussion of film quality -- that is education, i.e. a film's quality might be from its informing people about a subject even if they don't enjoy it. However, that only applies to a small minority of films. (While I'm at it, I should also make clear that by 'enjoyment', I don't necessarily mean fun, so being emotionally moved, even in a very sad way, is under this umbrella.)
I don't agree that any other factor should be judged independently of these two in assessing film quality. All other things (e.g. cinematography, language, dialogue, actors) feed into how effectively the film achieves an end result of entertaining (and/or informing) people.
I would maintain that, in terms of attempting to be objective (which is the discussion here), Spider-Man 3 is indeed the better film as it has provided more enjoyment. That is the point of (most) films. Whether it is the film of the two that any individual should choose to see is another matter. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 01:43:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Oh, I see, you're saying that people generally say their favourite film is the one they most enjoyed watching.
No, I didn't say that. Surprise, surprise -- you're once again responding to what you have imagined that I have said rather than to what I have actually said.
Well, then I don't really know what you are saying. Maybe someone else around here could explain it in terms I could understand?! Please??
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 02:04:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I would maintain that, in terms of attempting to be objective (which is the discussion here), Spider-Man 3 is indeed the better film as it has provided more enjoyment. That is the point of (most) films. Whether it is the film of the two that any individual should choose to see is another matter.
Does that mean that if censors ban a film and nobody sees it (hence no enjoyment) then it's a bad film? Obviously not.
I think you're assuming that quality and public exposure are somehow correlated, I definitely don't think they are. Marketing is the main factor affecting public exposure.
It's even clearer in the music world that the two are not related. There is no way that Britney Spears's 'music' becomes 'better' than that of Ibro Diabate simply because she's been used as a more effective tool for raking in the cash from teen girls's pockets. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 09:32:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Does that mean that if censors ban a film and nobody sees it (hence no enjoyment) then it's a bad film? Obviously not.
Hhmmm, good point (although admittedly I'd touched on it already with Clockwork Orange), and also that not as many individuals are able to see an 18 as a U.
I maintain that the best theoretical objective judgment of the quality of a film is the potential total enjoyment that it can cause, and that a large number of films will be roughly proportional in the degree to which they reach this potential, but yes, there will certainly be exceptions. However, only the actual enjoyment caused can even be measured crudely, so that is what one has to go with. |
Edited by - Sal[Au]pian on 07/03/2008 09:44:34 |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 09:34:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Well, then I don't really know what you are saying. Maybe someone else around here could explain it in terms I could understand?! Please??
I really cannot help it if you cannot understand basic concepts. I am not saying that you have to agree with my position, but it really is very simple. The amount of enjoyment that I mentioned correlating with the numbers of people placing a film top is not the enjoyment only of those people but of all viewers. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 10:29:07
|
Widely seen and enjoyed does not equal best quality film.
In other words, more people polled obviously saw and enjoyed "Notting Hill" than they did, oh, "Brief Encounters", for instance. Just because they voted for "Notting Hill" doesn't mean that it is a better picture than "Brief Encounters".
|
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 10:32:02
|
| Well, I'm not sure that's true about numbers of people and Brief Encounter - but O.K., what basis would you choose for trying to objectively find the best film, if you think any attempt can be made at all? |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 11:15:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Well, then I don't really know what you are saying. Maybe someone else around here could explain it in terms I could understand?! Please??
I really cannot help it if you cannot understand basic concepts. I am not saying that you have to agree with my position, but it really is very simple. The amount of enjoyment that I mentioned correlating with the numbers of people placing a film top is not the enjoyment only of those people but of all viewers.
So a cohort can be taken to be approximately representative of a larger group?
Is that it?
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 11:20:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Well, I'm not sure that's true about numbers of people and Brief Encounter - but O.K., what basis would you choose for trying to objectively find the best film, if you think any attempt can be made at all?
A simple open popularity poll isn't the way, that's for sure. That's skewed since replies coming are only by those who feel like replying and can't truly reflect the demographics of the general population. Having just critics and experts make up the list will probably end up with something very eliteist looking. Personally, I don't think that there is one way to choose the "Best British Film of All Time" and have most people agree on the results. Any list needs to be clarified, like "critics choice" or "X site's favourite".
|
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 11:25:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
So a cohort can be taken to be approximately representative of a larger group?
No, not that either.  The correlation I suggested is not from a sample to the whole population. (Practically, it would necessarily involve that, but I haven't mentioned that at any point and it is not in theory essential.) The correlation is from favourite film status to enjoyment in general. I don't know why I am even restating this as I put it quite unambiguously in the first place. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 11:39:25
|
Who is the best fwfrer in the Fourum?
A. This week
B. This month
C. This year
D. Ever
Who makes the best egg salad?
What is the best river?
What is the best tree?
What is the best ballet?
Who is the best hedgehog?
What is the best wheel?
What is the best blue?
Who is the best whisperer?
What is the best country lane?
What is the best cloud?
What is the best galaxy?
|
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 12:06:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Who is the best fwfrer in the Fourum?
A. This week
B. This month
C. This year
D. Ever
Who makes the best egg salad?
What is the best river?
What is the best tree?
What is the best ballet?
Who is the best hedgehog?
What is the best wheel?
What is the best blue?
Who is the best whisperer?
What is the best country lane?
What is the best cloud?
What is the best galaxy?
The ones that win the votes, of course. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Best British film of all time
