New Game: The Best By The Best

Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

I'm down.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

No minimum, but three should be the maximum although we should be able to double up on some of the citations such as the Academy did in 1938 when they named both Mickey Rooney and Deanna Durbin for special juvinile Oscars.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Ok, so I was thinking about this and I think we should expand the Special Citation category to allow people to put more than one item in it. Since it's such a broad category, it would be nice to allow more options.

Do you think two or three selections per individual would be good (no minimum or maximum)?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

OscarGuy wrote:I don't agree. Something made for and designed for television should not be considered in the same vein as films made directly for the big screen. If you permit some, you have to permit all and I don't think we should be including all television movies. Especially since the IMDB doesn't always differentiate with release dates.
We would only include th0se with clear release dates such asthree I mentioned earlier - Scenes from a Marriage, Fanny & Alexadner, My Beautiful Laundrette as well as The Last Seduction, all of which won awards from highly respected film awards groups.
Hustler
Tenured
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires-Argentina

Post by Hustler »

Big Magilla wrote:An example of the latter: in 1956, Deborah Kerr had high profile roles in The King and I, Tea and Sympathy and The Proud and Profane. While she was luminous in the first two, she was merely good in the third, so I would want to nomiante her only for the first two.
Same case with Diane Keaton in 1977. She is brilliant in Annie Hall and riveting in Looking for Mr. Goodbar.
Hustler
Tenured
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires-Argentina

Post by Hustler »

I´m in.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I don't agree. Something made for and designed for television should not be considered in the same vein as films made directly for the big screen. If you permit some, you have to permit all and I don't think we should be including all television movies. Especially since the IMDB doesn't always differentiate with release dates.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

OscarGuy wrote:Why that particular exception, Pen?
Because it was never shown theatrically in the U.S. which is why year of first showing anywhere should be the rule.

I think made-for-TV movies should count if they were released theatrically.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Why that particular exception, Pen?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Post by Zahveed »

Well, this game seems easier to stay on track. I'll join. I apologize in advance if I manage jumping ship again.
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
Penelope
Site Admin
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Tampa, FL, USA

Post by Penelope »

As long as we can make a few exceptions (for example, the U.S. made White Dog counts as 1982 based on its European release that year), I'm ok with country of origin.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston

"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

In my opinion, if the film was made for television, it shouldn't be qualified.

I also believe that the release date we should use is the release date of the country of origin.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

I still have a problem with using the date listed next to the film on imdb. as the only source of information regarding release dates. Going to the release date page and notating the date of release in country of origin would be a better idea, but even that could be problematic.

I assume that even though only a handful of people were able to see The Rules of the Game before it was shut down by the Vichy Government in 1939 we woudl count that as 1939, but what of these examples:

The imdb. shows Andrei Ruvlev's release date as being 1969, the year it was shown at cannes, but we know that it was completed in 1966 and suffered the same political pressures as Rules of the Game under the Soviets. Do we consider it 1966 or 1969?

The imdb. shows A Room With a View as having had a Royal Command Film Performance in 1985 yet even the official UK site shows no such perforamnce. A Pasage to India was the film shown in 1985, White Nights the film shown in 1986. A Room With a View did not play anywhere in the world until April, 1986.

The imdb. shows How the West Was Won, The Pawnbroker and Atlantic City as having played in Europe the year before their American rekeases. Do we go by date of release in country of origin or first showing anywhere in the world?

What about films shown on TV in their countries of origin and released theatrically the following year? Since the theatrical releases of Scenes From a Marriage, das Boot and Fanny & Alexander were truncated versions of longer mini-series it seems an easy call since theatrical cut is the one we should be focused on, but what about My Beautiful landrettte, shown on TV in the UK in 1985, but not released theatrically until 1986?
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I think that's what we agreed upon. I can't remember, though. :)

And, FilmFan, you know you WANT to play. ;)
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Penelope
Site Admin
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Tampa, FL, USA

Post by Penelope »

Reza wrote:I also feel that a film should be included in the year it was originally released in its country of origin. I find it absurd that Limelight and Tokyo Story fit into 1972 just because the films were released in America (or L.A.) that year. Both films should belong to the years they first came out.
Amen to that. I'm in.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston

"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
Post Reply

Return to “Other Film Discussions”