Page 1 of 4
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:33 pm
by Zahveed
Big Magilla wrote:Actually you know it would make sense to hold off making a best of the decade list for the years 2000-2009 until 2011 so that we can put a little distance on the 2009 films, giving them a chance to grow or recede in our admiration as the case may be. :p
It's more logical but not nearly as fun.
I say we come back in five or six years when the decade becomes more of a novelty.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:34 pm
by Big Magilla
Actually you know it would make sense to hold off making a best of the decade list for the years 2000-2009 until 2011 so that we can put a little distance on the 2009 films, giving them a chance to grow or recede in our admiration as the case may be. :p
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:40 pm
by Sonic Youth
Greg and Magilla, I'm looking forward to your "Best of the Decade" lists in January, 2011. See you then!
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:02 pm
by Okri
Eric wrote:This conversation, should it continue, could actually be the most boring conversation in the history of this board. Keep it up.
I was totally going to continue it, but this comment made me laugh too loudly.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:52 pm
by Eric
This conversation, should it continue, could actually be the most boring conversation in the history of this board. Keep it up.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:41 pm
by Greg
That reminds me, I remember watching some news-talk TV show where someone said that in private President Kennedy had mentioned that his call to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade would have given him some wiggle room where he could claim that the decade didn't end until Dec. 31, 1970; but, it proved to be unnecessary.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:27 pm
by Big Magilla
Technically speaking Greg is correct but the general practice has always been to jump the decade a year early. The turn of the century was technically January 1, 2001 though it was a celebrated a year earlier as was the turn of the 20th Century and so on.
There actually is a series of books called The Best Films of the ----s that runs from -1 to -0 for each decade but proper annotations of time is rare.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:56 pm
by Greg
Okay, now I get it.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:44 pm
by OscarGuy
Here's an example:
When you think of the 1980s, you think of the years 1980-1989. It's just the way the digits play out and the ease of numbering...after all, if it were 1981-1990 while also a correct statement, would be a little more ambiguous since it wouldn't be the 1980s because there a 199- in there.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:42 pm
by Greg
Sonic Youth wrote:Greg wrote:Does anyone else know how technically Travers' top 10 of the decade list is one year early?
It isn't.
You'll lose this one, so give up while you can.
Okay, I'll take the bait.
I thought the reason the list would technically be one year early was because when the calendar was drawn for the AD years, there was the oversight of having no year AD 0. So, the end of the first AD year was Dec. 31, AD 1; The end of the second AD year was Dec. 31 AD 2; etc., up to the end of the tenth AD year, the end of the first AD decade, being Dec. 31 AD 10. That meant the start of the second AD decade was Jan. 1, AD 11, not Jan. 1, AD 10.
Also, the start of the second AD century was Jan. 1, 101; the start of the second AD millenium was Jan. 1, 1001; the third AD millenium began on Jan. 1, 2001, not Jan. 1, 2000; and, this decade ends on Dec. 31, 2010.
How am I wrong?
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:54 pm
by Hustler
2nd runner-up is a four-way tie. Zahveed, hustler, rain Bard and myself each received 6 points. Now, 6 points is pretty pathetic, but you don't have to tell anyone this. If someone asks, just say you were the 2nd runner-up.
LOL! That´s a good one!
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:02 am
by Sabin
Congrats, FilmFan!
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:50 am
by rain Bard
The Original BJ wrote:Peter Travers makes no sense to me. How can There Will Be Blood be the best film of the decade when it wasn't even in the top five in its year? And Children of Men, #2 of the decade, wasn't even on his top ten list at all!
I can allow for change of thought over time...but I usually don't change my opinions THAT much within a couple years.
Two theoretical explanations:
1. He feels so rushed to get his list out there before everyone else that he makes snap judgments each year, some of which are inevitably going to get revised upon further reflection
2. His listing is influenced (like many other critics lists are, whether they admit it or not) by the opinions of his peers and his readers who send him feedback. One hazard of publishing your list first is not being able to predict how others will react to a potentially off-putting film like There Will Be Blood. There's no way to know that it's going to inspire catchphrases, parodies, and millions of passionate blog comments. You end up looking like you didn't like it as much as everyone else. This placement of the film may atone for that oversight in the eyes of his readers. (or, at least, so he or his subconscious thinks)
PS thanks Sonic for running a fun contest. I'd say the low scores indicate a better year for middlebrow films than usual. But looking at what Travers put at the top of his list, I wonder if it's the reverse.
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:18 pm
by Sonic Youth
It's all give and take, Filmfan. As the Good Lord said "Be fruitful, and lose the Peter Travers Top Ten contest in the bargain."
Congratulations!
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:51 pm
by FilmFan720
PS, Thank you Sonic for a much needed hearty laugh at the end of an extremely long, tiring and cold midwestern day.