The Great Movie Tournament: Overall Event Overview

[Ricky]

I watched the 2000s episode of CNN's The Movies and was a little disappointed. It seemed more like a clip show that was short on analysis. They did fit a lot of movies into 1.5 hours, though, so maybe it was too broad of a focus? I mean, they could've easily done a miniseries on each decade.

[Still Servant]

You may be pleasantly surprised. I realize that "comic book" movies is more then just the Marvel and DC movies, but they are the bulk of the popular ones, that I suspect you are worried about. If you look at the movies in for the 2000's there are 3/6 DC movies, and 3/19 Marvel movies*. Granted most of the MCU movies are in 2010's and those are generally the best of the marvel movies.

*based on list provided by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...d_on_DC_Comics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Marvel_Comics

There will be 34 Marvel movies in the 2010's and 10 DC.

So far it has seemed like a theme to only nominate one movie from a series (the LOTR and 2 batman movies are notable exceptions). Maybe that will continue.

Yeah, it could a lot, maybe 15-25 is my prediction.

You might be right.

From my point of view, we will see films like Ironman 3, Thor 1 & 2 and both Ant-Man films in the tournament. Enjoyable films, but they don't belong anywhere near a tournament that is trying to put together a list of the very best films of the decade.

When it comes down to it, what are people going to be more apt to second, Thor 2 or a film like Four Lions?

[Still Servant]

I watched two films from the tournament last night. I caught Session 9 on Starz and I found Bug for a buck yesterday morning at a garage sale.

Of the two, I enjoyed Bug far more. I thought the film did a great job of showing two people suffering from a psychotic episode. It's a shame Ashley Judd hasn't done much in recent years, I always liked her as an actress. As for Shannon, he's always outstanding.

Session 9 had a lot of work to do from the start because I've never liked David Caruso. I felt the film could have done way more with the setting. The Danvers State Hospital is somewhat of a legend here in New England and it's a shame they didn't play into that even more.

Maybe I was expecting too much. It seems to be so beloved, so maybe some of the people here who really enjoyed it can let me know why. I also don't think it's even a horror film. Outside one or two scenes, I wouldn't clasify it as horror.

[mae]

I love Session 9, it's all about the atmosphere, the sound design, it's like physically being at the hospital. "Creepy" doesn't begin to cover it. First time I watched it I was all by myself at home late at night, and I was scared to go from the TV to my bed, I was so disturbed. I love that last line, I think it goes "Fear lives in the weak and the wounded"... I think what scared me most were the actual sessions themselves as we're sitting there listening to them.

[mae]

I wouldn't call Session 9 a horror film either, per se, but a physiological horror film? Sure.

Here's a great (and long) discussion of the film:



This is a great channel that does a lot of in-depth analyses of horror movies.

[webstar1000]

Did Saw not make it into this? I mean the best horror film of the decade for me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mae]

Saw did not. It's a bit surprising for sure but I feel there are better horror movies that made it in. Maybe people thought as the franchise wore on it cheapened the original, which isn't that well regarded to begin with (49% on RT).

[webstar1000]

Saw did not. It's a bit surprising for sure but I feel there are better horror movies that made it in. Maybe people thought as the franchise wore on it cheapened the original, which isn't that well regarded to begin with (49% on RT).

I don’t get that. That movie blew me away. I’ll never forget the ending when the guy on the floor got up and walked out. To this day I remember jumping up with my hands on my head in shock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mae]

One horror movie that blew me away that I'm sad I didn't get to and I meant to nominate, just ran out of time, was Triangle (2009). Now that is another masterful film.

[webstar1000]

One horror movie that blew me away that I'm sad I didn't get to and I meant to nominate, just ran out of time, was Triangle (2009). Now that is another masterful film.

Damm I never heard of this. Gonna get it... sounds cool!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mae]

We've got a couple of ties that could force a tiebreaker in our last two batches of groups for Round 1. I would be so happy if someone who hasn't voted yet could break those ties, otherwise they'll delay the opening of Round 2, and I'd love to avoid that. Even anyone who already voted for less than six can add their vote in the thread.

[Tommy]

We've got a couple of ties that could force a tiebreaker in our last two batches of groups for Round 1. I would be so happy if someone who hasn't voted yet could break those ties, otherwise they'll delay the opening of Round 2, and I'd love to avoid that. Even anyone who already voted for less than six can add their vote in the thread.

Mae, I'm super lazy, which threads are they?

[Tommy]

One horror movie that blew me away that I'm sad I didn't get to and I meant to nominate, just ran out of time, was Triangle (2009). Now that is another masterful film.

Oh hey yeah, I remember that one, Christopher Smith is a really good director.
There's an Australian horror film called The Loved Ones I wanted to nominate. That movie is quite entertaining.

[mae]

We've got a couple of ties that could force a tiebreaker in our last two batches of groups for Round 1. I would be so happy if someone who hasn't voted yet could break those ties, otherwise they'll delay the opening of Round 2, and I'd love to avoid that. Even anyone who already voted for less than six can add their vote in the thread.

Mae, I'm super lazy, which threads are they?

That would be 26, 30, and 32. With a potential tie in 25, with the seventh place one vote away from sixth.

[Tommy]

Thanks, will have a look soon...

[webstar1000]

One horror movie that blew me away that I'm sad I didn't get to and I meant to nominate, just ran out of time, was Triangle (2009). Now that is another masterful film.

Damm I never heard of this. Gonna get it... sounds cool!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did see that before... Good flick. STILL SAW was much better... never forgot it. I did this

[mae]

Interestingly, in the entire 1990s tournament we had 13 tiebreakers. We're already at nine in the 2000s.

[Tommy]

mae, will Netflix and other streaming services movies be eligible for the 2010s tournament?

[mae]

mae, will Netflix and other streaming services movies be eligible for the 2010s tournament?

Of course, and most streaming movies actually have festival premieres.

[mae]

Also, breaking news! Round 2 will start as scheduled, no delays. I just did the placement for the second round, and all the blank spots due to the tiebreakers fall on groups between 24 and 32, so won't interfere or affect the first week of the Round 2. It just means Round 2 polls will be for a couple of days sharing space with these last-minute Round 1 tiebreakers.

[Still Servant]

mae, will Netflix and other streaming services movies be eligible for the 2010s tournament?

I'm telling you, the next tournament is going to be batshit crazy. There have been so many more films released this past decade. Plus, there's so much more variety.

I feel like the guy in a disaster movie that keeps warning people, but nobody listens to him. Not to mention that less time has passed, so many people haven't seen many of the films.

[mae]

I'm all for ideas on how to improve this but I do want to stick to the schedule as much as possible. For the nomination process I do want to increase the waiting period. We went through the 2000s in record time. At least this will allow for more reflection and more participation. The 1990s nominations took two weeks, and we were done with the 2000s in six days. Other than that, what else can we implement? Does increasing the number from 256 to, say, 320 make sense? I'd want to keep the same round structure though, I feel like it works great (when things are not tied), but if we were to increase to 320, we would increase the group number from 32 to 40 with the same 8 titles and top 6 moving on... Or is there a different problem with timing? Should we hold off on the 2010s and do the 1980s instead in January 2020, and do the 2010s after? Thoughts?

[Still Servant]

It might not be a bad idea to delay it for a bit so people can watch more of the films.

The larger issue is (and there's nothing wrong with this) the taste of many of the posters here is leaning more and more to the mainstream. See the success of films like Resident Evil and The Day After Tomorrow. I'm just worried about having a ton of Marvel films and 5 Fast & the Furious films when films like First Reformed, Leave No Trace and A Ghost Story struggle to even get seconded.

I wouldn't mind doing a separate tournament just for superhero films.

[Ricky]

For the nomination process I do want to increase the waiting period.

Yes, thank you!

Other than that, what else can we implement? Does increasing the number from 256 to, say, 320 make sense?

I get the worry that blockbusters and more mainstream movies might have more influence/popularity among our general population, but it also doesn't make sense to me to increase the number of nominated films for this reason, especially if we're going off the rationale that the "little guys" will be eliminated before the blockbusters anyway. All that really does is postpone it, right? I think a better idea is to do something with nomination limits.

It might not be a bad idea to delay it for a bit so people can watch more of the films.

Yes, please! That's my main "complaint." Everything has been moving so fast at the beginnings of these tournaments that I have no time to make a list of the movies I haven't seen, track them down, and then watch them. As a result, there are a lot of brackets I just can't vote in (and I'm sure others are in the same boat). What if we just draw out the nominations process at the beginning, like you were saying, Mae, and then, after we have our complete list of nominated films, take a 2 or 3-week hiatus for catch-up viewings before we begin the brackets and voting?

I feel like the guy in a disaster movie that keeps warning people, but nobody listens to him.

I'm picturing you as Paul Giamatti in San Andreas.

[Still Servant]

I feel like the guy in a disaster movie that keeps warning people, but nobody listens to him.

I'm picturing you as Paul Giamatti in San Andreas.

I'll take it! I love Giamatti. I met him once and had the pleasure of miking him up.