Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, October 01, 2018

Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (October 2018)

Over the past eight months EW has stalked [Jamie Lee] Curtis and the rest of the Halloween crew — though hopefully in a much less threatening manner than Michael Myers tracks Laurie Strode. The result is a story which includes interviews with Curtis, [David Gordon] Green, [Danny] McBride, [John] Carpenter, and Nick Castle, who once again makes an appearance as Myers in the new film, 40 years after playing the slasher icon in the original movie.

Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: October 01, 2018 at 09:32 AM | 732 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: movies, music, off-topic, television, whatever else belongs under the rubric of 'popular culture'

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 4 of 8 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
   301. Lassus Posted: October 17, 2018 at 10:11 AM (#5768793)
Then it's Enrico Caruso and everyone else has to pound sand.

Please. Caruso could maybe carry Bjorling's luggage onto the train. And I like the modern sounds of Rolfe-Johnson and Schreier better anyhow. It's basically Quasthoff and everyone else is tied for third.
   302. BDC Posted: October 17, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5768801)
surprised no one has brought up...Jo Stafford


What? The only showbiz figure who comes up more often around here than Jo Stafford is Barbara Stanwyck :-D

various performers of that generation doing Stardust


Sinatra had an odd history with that song. He made a recording with Tommy Dorsey and the Pied Pipers of the chorus, and one he did with Don Costa that's just the verse: might as well be two completely different songs given those factors. He recorded the chorus with Harry James, too, but I don't know of a definitive Sinatra "Stardust." There's probably one out there somewhere.

"Stardust" always reminds me of "Lush Life," as two of the most complex pieces in the "songbook." Sinatra apparently tried to record "Lush Life" once, got a few bars in, gave up … well, as I was remembering that story, I realized that in the digital age probably nothing will ever be lost again, you can listen to Sinatra attempting "Lush Life" here. "Put it aside for about a year!"
   303. Morty Causa Posted: October 17, 2018 at 05:39 PM (#5769315)
What? The only showbiz figure who comes up more often around here than Jo Stafford is Barbara Stanwyck :-D

Hm, that's strange. You would think I'd remember something like that. I guess I must have those posters who bring them up on ignore.
   304. Rennie's Tenet Posted: October 17, 2018 at 11:02 PM (#5769742)
Compare Ella Fitzgerald's "Can't Buy Me Love": it's essentially a swing song anyway, and she just went with it in its own style and made it a very appealing part of her catalog.


Ella has a wonderful version of "These Boots Were Made for Walking."

I'm a fan of most of the songbook singers mentioned above. I think Sinatra is by far the most long-haul of them. I listened to the Sinatra channel on satellite radio most of the time in my car for probably 3-4 years. The format was 50% Sinatra (all eras) and 50% of a lot of the people mentioned above, plus Clooney and some folks like Chet Baker and Joe Williams. It's slowly been watered down to about 25% Sinatra, while adding everything from standards by old rockers to Michael Buble to James Bond themes. It escapes being an easy listening station more by not playing the Ray Coniff Singers than by what it does play. The channel is pretty far down my playlist now, and when I linger on it for a bit it's because they're doing something that focuses on Sinatra for an hour.

As to opera singers, I think Pavarotti wins the contest, but for sustained listening Franco Corelli is my favorite.
   305. BDC Posted: October 18, 2018 at 08:06 AM (#5770077)
Last semester my class read Verga's story "Cavalleria Rusticana," and I played them an old TV recording of Franco Corelli singing goodbye to his mother. The jacket alone marks him for death.

Corelli was great, I think; and Pavarotti, though he became a kind of a clownish pop-culture presence, was not overrated. Though the one thing I've learned about rating opera singers is that for every fan who expresses an opinion, there's another fan ready to violently contradict it :)

Of the active superstar tenors, I think Jonas Kaufmann really is superior (or was; he's nearly 50 now). I saw a Metropolitan HD broadcast of Kaufmann live in Massenet's Werther a few years ago that was wonderful. Kaufmann is apparently something of a PITA and not always reliable about showing up to engagements he has signed onto, but what's opera without that kind of behavior.
   306. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: October 18, 2018 at 09:43 AM (#5770110)
   307. PreservedFish Posted: October 18, 2018 at 09:53 AM (#5770118)
My wife and I were invited to a Harry Potter themed party. Not for kids, mind you. For adults. I'm not sure what to do about this.
   308. BDC Posted: October 18, 2018 at 09:55 AM (#5770124)
My wife and I were invited to a Harry Potter themed party. Not for kids, mind you. For adults. I'm not sure what to do about this.


Don't show up, and when they ask you why, tell them you were there the whole time under the Cloak of Invisibility.
   309. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: October 18, 2018 at 10:01 AM (#5770131)
307- After our first child was born, my wife had to stay at the hospital for a few days to recover. For entertainment she asked me to bring her all 8 Harry Potter movies....and she watched them constantly....on a loop....for all 3 days.
   310. PreservedFish Posted: October 18, 2018 at 10:05 AM (#5770134)
I've seen all the movies. I like them. Don't love em.

I'm worried that people will be in, like, costumes.
   311. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: October 18, 2018 at 10:26 AM (#5770153)
Just, ya know, wear big glasses and draw a lightning bolt scar on your forehead.
   312. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 18, 2018 at 11:14 AM (#5770212)
I'm worried that people will be in, like, costumes.
Well, duh. You have the right to be concerned.

The Cloak idea is the best one; you could alternately go as a Muggle, I suppose. Is it around Halloween, or just a random event in someone's life? If it's Halloween, then I guess it's not that weird. If it were on July 31st or something that would creep me out.

The butterbeer at Universal Studios isn't bad; if the hosts find a way to make it alcoholic, what the heck.
   313. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 18, 2018 at 11:17 AM (#5770217)
just gonna be Gravity + Oscar-y biopic
"just"?

Gravity was pretty decent already.
   314. PreservedFish Posted: October 18, 2018 at 11:21 AM (#5770223)
The Cloak idea is the best one; you could alternately go as a Muggle, I suppose. Is it around Halloween, or just a random event in someone's life? If it's Halloween, then I guess it's not that weird. If it were on July 31st or something that would creep me out.


It's an afterparty for the opening of the new HP spinoff movie, which I would otherwise be highly unlikely to go see.

I really like the couple though - they are super friendly hippies and the guy is a boatbuilder, which is pretty cool.
   315. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: October 18, 2018 at 11:35 AM (#5770245)
My wife and I were invited to a Harry Potter themed party. Not for kids, mind you. For adults. I'm not sure what to do about this.
Run far, far away.
   316. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 18, 2018 at 12:00 PM (#5770287)
It's an afterparty for the opening of the new HP spinoff movie
That's acceptable if it's in Hollywood and your friend is a producer on the film. Otherwise, not so much...
   317. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: October 18, 2018 at 12:01 PM (#5770291)
Last 10 movies. Had a nice run lately:

Honey (1999) - 99
First Man -87
Spring Night, Summer Night - 86
Smallfoot - 81
Fahrenheit 11/9 - 77
A Star is Born (2018) - 64
King Lear (2018) - 52
A Star Is Born (1937) - 46
Our Souls at Night - 45
RBG - 11
   318. Rennie's Tenet Posted: October 18, 2018 at 01:36 PM (#5770392)
Do an image search for "slutty Harry Potter costume" before you decide not to go.
   319. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 18, 2018 at 01:47 PM (#5770403)
Do an image search for "slutty Harry Potter costume" before you decide not to go.
I'll never think about Dobby the same way again.
   320. Lassus Posted: October 18, 2018 at 02:25 PM (#5770440)
Go as Cedric Diggory, and spend the entire party lying on the floor, silent, face down, interacting with no one. Added bonus for voiding bowels & fluids involved in sudden death.
   321. Lassus Posted: October 18, 2018 at 02:27 PM (#5770443)
I've seen all the movies. I like them. Don't love em.

This is fair. I don't even love the books, but I do think they are brilliant and wonderful for how successful they became and the influence they had on reading. Rowling deserves every last penny, and more power to her.
   322. Graham & the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck" Posted: October 18, 2018 at 02:34 PM (#5770448)
My wife and I were invited to a Harry Potter themed party. Not for kids, mind you. For adults. I'm not sure what to do about this.


I am right in the generational wheelhouse for Harry Potter fandom. My grandparents gave me the first book for my tenth birthday. It had only been available in the US for a little over a year at that point. I devoured the first three books and read the fourth novel as soon as it was released. I was still pretty excited for the fifth one. However, when the sixth one came out I was nearly sixteen and had discovered I preferred other books. I eventually finished the series during some slow week in college when my roommate convinced me I should finish them or otherwise I was going to be culturally separated from everyone else our age. I was never crazy about the movies and think I stopped keeping up around number five or six.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people my age still obsess over these books and everything that goes along with them. I work with a girl in her mid-twenties who re-reads all seven novels on a yearly basis. This is not uncommon behavior either, and it baffles me. I thought they were pretty magical books when I was eleven years old. I'm sure my kids will read them, but why on earth keep returning to them? I have nostalgia for certain things from my childhood - the Simpsons, Nintendo 64, etc. - but those at least hold up in some capacity. What is it about Harry Potter that remains so fascinating (to adults) after all these years?
   323. dlf Posted: October 18, 2018 at 02:44 PM (#5770455)
The butterbeer at Universal Studios isn't bad; if the hosts find a way to make it alcoholic, what the heck.


My daughter works part time at Universal - go this weekend to see her and her co-workers scare you for week 2(?) of their Halloween themed activities! She describes the butterbeer as creme soda with a giant scoop of coolwhip on top.
   324. Lassus Posted: October 18, 2018 at 02:48 PM (#5770459)
However, when the sixth one came out I was nearly sixteen

I need to sit down.
   325. Lassus Posted: October 18, 2018 at 03:02 PM (#5770469)
I thought they were pretty magical books when I was eleven years old. I'm sure my kids will read them, but why on earth keep returning to them?

ANYHOW. I think this is somewhat personal for certain readers rather than about the books themselves. It's just the exposure to it for folks like you is magnified because they were only the most popular books on the planet for at least a decade. There are folks who re-read the Narnia books frequently, or the Oz books, or Marry Poppins, all best-sellers, but that was all pre-internet and none of them were close to Potter. The Potter books have surpassed 500 million copies sold, and here are the next five:

Potter - 8 books - 500 million

Goosebumps (Stine) 62 books - 350 million
Perry Mason - 82 books - 300 million
Berenstein Bears - 300+ books - 260 million
Choose Your Own Adventure - 185 books - 250 million
Sweet Valley High - 400 books - 250 million

On a meta level, what you've come across IMO is less about something unique about the books themselves and more about the popularity and sheer volume of the books, which cannot actually be overstated. It's unreal.

Now, OF COURSE there is something about the books themselves that lends them to people going crazy over them. I do think a lot of what you're describing - from this layperson's advice - is sheer volume, however.
   326. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 18, 2018 at 03:16 PM (#5770476)
For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people my age still obsess over these books and everything that goes along with them. I work with a girl in her mid-twenties who re-reads all seven novels on a yearly basis.
You think *that's* obsessive, check out this guy...
For example, that 1980 birthday for Harry Potter was immediately called into question by even the most cursory look at any Real World calendar.

The action of Chapter one of PS/SS opens with Vernon Dursley setting off to work on a “dull, grey Tuesday morning” which all subsequent statements imply to have been the First of November, 1981, some 15 months after Harry’s birth.

Except that if you look at any calendar for 1981, you will see that the first of November is quite clearly a Sunday; a day upon which Vernon and Petunia might be heading off to church, but on which Vernon would certainly not be heading off to the office.

Unless the day the story opens is not the 1st of November, but the 3rd and baby Harry was not merely off the map for the “missing” 24 hour period generally assumed, but had been kept in seclusion for a period of some three days. Otherwise it is not possible for the narration we are given to be applied to the Real World year of 1981. (And even this re-evaluation would not explain the radio announcer’s mysterious admonition that Bonfire night is “not until next week, folks”, unless the broadcast was actually taking place late in October rather than the 1st of November, which makes no sense whatsoever. It would not add up even if the 1st of November had been on a Tuesday.)

In order to find a First of November that does take place on a Tuesday, you have to step forward to 1983. Which would shift Harry’s birth date to July 31, 1982. Which does not comply with having the 500th anniversary of Nearly Headless Nick’s death (in 1492) take place in Harry’s 2nd year, since in that case Harry’s 2nd year would have been the academic year of 1994-95.

So. Would correcting the date of Nick’s execution to 1494 resolve the problem?
Much, much, MUCH more at the link.
   327. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: October 18, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5770486)
The Harry Potter stuff has completely passed me by but I watched the Fantastic Beasts movie on a plane and enjoyed it. I'm a sucker for movies with fantastical critters. My lack of Harry Potter knowledge makes me feel like one of those annoying people who brag about never have seen a Star Wars movie, though. Sorry.
   328. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: October 18, 2018 at 03:30 PM (#5770488)
Added bonus for voiding bowels & fluids
See, that's what I always tell party hosts, but they just call me an alcoholic.
   329. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: October 18, 2018 at 03:34 PM (#5770491)
My lack of Harry Potter knowledge makes me feel like one of those annoying people who brag about never have seen a Star Wars movie, though. Sorry.

Ha! I was like that for the longest time—finally saw the whole lot of Star Warses this spring, at age 33.

Of course, afterwards I learned that I didn’t like the correct ones (Episodes 2, 3 and 8 were my favorites), so, really, it would have been better off had I never seen them after all!

(I still retain the annoyance of having never seen any of the Godfather movies. So far!)
   330. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: October 18, 2018 at 03:38 PM (#5770492)
(I still retain the annoyance of having never seen any of the Godfather movies. So far!)

Well, it does insist upon itself.
   331. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 18, 2018 at 03:45 PM (#5770495)
(Episodes 2, 3 and 8 were the only ones I liked)
If you say something about Jar Jar being your favorite character, there's no further hope for you.

Iconic stuff I've never seen includes The Big Lebowski and any episode of CSI or SVU or NCIS or JAG or any of that stuff. And, weirdly, anything with Jim Carrey in it, except for Truman Show, which I thought was excellent. I've seen maybe half of Bruce Almighty in bits and spurts on cable, and nothing else he ever has done, and that includes In Living Color.
   332. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: October 18, 2018 at 03:50 PM (#5770498)

Iconic stuff I've never seen includes The Big Lebowski and any episode of CSI or SVU or NCIS or JAG or any of that stuff. And, weirdly, anything with Jim Carrey in it, except for Truman Show, which I thought was excellent. I've seen maybe half of Bruce Almighty in bits and spurts on cable, and nothing else he ever has done, and that includes In Living Color.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is one you should watch, but think of it as a Charlie Kaufman movie and not a Jim Carrey one. As for CSI etc., if I ever start watching that mush it means I'm dead inside. When my mother in law visits she watches those CBS procedurals and they just kill me with how awful they are. Sir, you are missing nothing.
   333. BDC Posted: October 18, 2018 at 04:03 PM (#5770503)
I have seen every William Petersen episode of CSI more than once, and every other episode except for the last Ted Danson season or two. Outstanding series, very influential on TV of this century. I love, love that show :)

   334. BDC Posted: October 18, 2018 at 04:09 PM (#5770506)
Academics sometimes play a game that David Lodge calls "Humiliation," where you reveal the most famous book you have never read, and the winner is the one who names the most famous of all (which can be scored as the book the most other people in the room have read).

In pop-culture terms I would do well because I would bet there are numerous contemporary music acts that everyone knows well that I haven't the vaguest idea of the existence of.

Most famous movie I have never seen is probably Spirited Away, or maybe one of the big recent comic-book hits – I don't think I've seen any of the top-grossing Marvel pictures except Black Panther.

Most famous TV, Lost or Game of Thrones.

The most famous book I have never read is Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain. I have had the same answer to that question for about 20 years now :-D
   335. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: October 18, 2018 at 04:24 PM (#5770522)
331- The reveal that Jar Jar ####### Binks is the one giving the monumentally important speech to the entire Galactic Senate (in Episode 2) is spectacularly, gut-bustingly funny. I’m sorry.

I will put up with all manner of his painfully lame hijinks just to get to that.
   336. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: October 18, 2018 at 04:48 PM (#5770537)
Not generally a fan of his, but Jim Carrey's new TV show (Kidding) is pretty good. Great at times, even.
   337. Baldrick Posted: October 18, 2018 at 05:03 PM (#5770551)
The most famous book I have never read is Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain

Your theory is that a significant percentage of the country has read this book?
   338. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 18, 2018 at 05:15 PM (#5770555)
So you've read Infinite Jest, then.
   339. vortex of dissipation Posted: October 18, 2018 at 05:16 PM (#5770557)
(I still retain the annoyance of having never seen any of the Godfather movies. So far!)


Same here. The first two Godfather movies plus The Shawshank Redemption are the top rated three on the IMDB list, and I haven't seen any of them.

In fact now that I look at it more closely, the only one of the IMDB Top Ten I may have seen is The Dark Knight, and I'm not sure about that one. I saw a Batman movie a few years ago, but I'm not sure which one. I don't think I've seen any of the others.

1. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
2. The Godfather (1972)
3. The Godfather: Part II (1974)
4. The Dark Knight (2008)
5. 12 Angry Men (1957)
6. Schindler's List (1993)
7. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
8. Pulp Fiction (1994)
9. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
10. Fight Club (1999)
   340. BDC Posted: October 18, 2018 at 05:27 PM (#5770562)
Hah, of course I haven't read Infinite Jest. And I will only if Beto is my new Senator in 2019. I will amend my answer.
   341. BDC Posted: October 18, 2018 at 05:28 PM (#5770564)
Highest-rated IMDb movies I have never seen are Seven Samurai and City of God at 19-20. Asian and Latin American movies in general, I am very ignorant about.
   342. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: October 18, 2018 at 06:17 PM (#5770581)
I'm shocked that The Dark Knight is #4 on a list of that scope. I mean, it was OK and all for the genre, but it wasn't better than Pulp Fiction or 12 Angry Men.

That was the Heath Ledger/Joker movie; if that part doesn't stick out in your mind you saw a different Batman film.

Oddly, I've never seen Shawshank or Schindler. I was living overseas in the early 90s, that period is my own personal vortex of dissipation. I missed out on grunge, and Full House, and Rodney King.
   343. vortex of dissipation Posted: October 18, 2018 at 06:21 PM (#5770582)
That was the Heath Ledger/Joker movie; if that part doesn't stick out in your mind you saw a different Batman film.


Thanks - yes, looking at the plot synopsis, the one I saw was Batman Begins.
   344. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: October 18, 2018 at 07:29 PM (#5770597)
Berenstein Bears - 300+ books - 260 million


Those numbers at least double if you include the Berenstain Bears.
   345. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: October 18, 2018 at 08:01 PM (#5770600)
(Not being a spelling Nazi there, BTW. The Berenstein/stain thing is a huge "Mandela Effect" phenomenon; till I Googled it I had no idea which was which.

(--gef, Team Dilemna)
   346. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: October 18, 2018 at 08:19 PM (#5770605)
At the moment there are zero actual still-on-the-air television shows that I watch. The only “active” shows I watch are online or streaming: On Cinema at the Cinema (all ten seasons!) is on AdultSwim.com; Bojack Horseman and the recently concluded (or was it, we can still pray!) SENSE8 are both on Netflix. At the moment, that’s all. (And with Bojack, I still haven’t even started the most recent season, even though I feel like it was released back in spring.)
   347. PreservedFish Posted: October 18, 2018 at 10:28 PM (#5770704)
I saw First Man tonight. The obvious way to describe it is Gravity + The Tree of Life. Regarding the former, it's in space and is very concerned with the physics of space and it is about an astronaut that lost a young daughter and can't stop thinking about her even while in the middle of the wonders of space. Regarding the latter, it's also about a family with young boys and an intelligent meticulous distant dad with a square haircut set in a semi-idyllic suburban environment. It's not as beautiful as either of those two movies, which are both particularly beautiful, and arguably not as artsy, but it's really nicely done. The focus is very inward. Most of the great space vistas are glimpsed through the eyes of the astronauts, through small trapezoidal windows and foggy space helmets. It's of the shaky camera + understated acting philosophy, which isn't novel for earthbound films but is very fresh take in space, and it really succeeds in communicating the visceral feeling of being in one of these dangerous creaky tin cans blasting a zillion miles per hour straight into the unknown.
   348. PreservedFish Posted: October 18, 2018 at 10:42 PM (#5770730)
Also, I love the Humiliation topic. Changing Places, right? Cute book.

For books, this English major regrets to say he's never read Romeo & Juliet, or seen it performed in any way, with the small exception of a few scenes from the Leo DiCaprio version, to which I also owned the soundtrack, which at the time was the only way to possess the Radiohead song "Talk Show Host." I've also never read 1984. Those are two big ones. I did purchase Mann's The Magic Mountain about twenty years ago and have yet to crack it open. Saving it for a long visit to an Alpine sanatorium.

As per IMDB, the best movie I've never seen is #16, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I have read the book. I feel more humiliated about having never seen Top Gun, it being a cultural touchstone for most people my age. For years people literally did not believe me when I told them I'd never seen Titanic, but I'd be lying if I said I felt even the slightest twinge of humiliation on that count.
   349. Rennie's Tenet Posted: October 18, 2018 at 11:01 PM (#5770753)
Can Romeo and Juliet be avoided in school? When I was in high school in the 70s, there was just no way around that, Hamlet, Huckleberry Finn, or A Tale of Two Cities. I remember spending excruciating amounts of time on those.
   350. PreservedFish Posted: October 18, 2018 at 11:06 PM (#5770767)
It just never happened. Not sure why.
   351. Howie Menckel Posted: October 18, 2018 at 11:26 PM (#5770798)
1. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
2. The Godfather (1972)
3. The Godfather: Part II (1974)
4. The Dark Knight (2008)
5. 12 Angry Men (1957)
6. Schindler's List (1993)
7. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
8. Pulp Fiction (1994)
9. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
10. Fight Club (1999)


I have seen Shawshank and parts of it over and over again. I am not a movie fan (obviously), but it is just a series of stunning vignettes about life. Loved 12 Angry Men as well, so 2 for 2.

haven't seen any of the other ones, but am not the type to claim a movie I haven't even seen is not great. I imagine they all are, in their own way.

I would reserve Shawshank, for those who haven't seen it, for a time and place where you are alone and you will not be interrupted. have it on DVR or anything else that makes you the boss, because it is unwatchable on, say, TBS. maybe a melancholy moment in your life, and you need something. this movie will give you what you need.

..........

I had a freshman HS English teacher who described each Romeo and Juliet character - then chose a suitable student to read their lines aloud, to the class's delight.

I was chosen to play Mercutio. Make of that what you will, English literature nerds!
   352. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 19, 2018 at 03:32 AM (#5770889)
#325:
Potter - 8 books - 500 million
Goosebumps (Stine) 62 books - 350 million
Perry Mason - 82 books - 300 million
Berenstein Bears - 300+ books - 260 million
Choose Your Own Adventure - 185 books - 250 million
Sweet Valley High - 400 books - 250 million

The five "Lord of the Rings" books have also sold in the vicinity of 250 million copies.



Highest-placing movies on the imdb Top 50 that I have not seen:

#25: Life Is Beautiful
#29: Leon: The Professional
#30: The Green Mile
#32: American History X
#38: The Intouchables (different from the UNtouchables; I don't recall ever hearing about this movie)
#43: Whiplash
#48: The Prestige
   353. BDC Posted: October 19, 2018 at 07:43 AM (#5770898)
We've noted before, I think, what a bro-oriented list the IMDb top ten is – not that there aren't good films of that variety. The really great films on it are Pulp Fiction and the Godfathers, though I will say that for my taste Godfather II is a bit long-drawn-out and self-satisfied. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is an example of a film that probably just looked foolish to a lot of people who saw it in its initial release, but looks better all the time in retrospect. Fight Club might be the opposite. I kind of liked Fight Club first (and only) time through, but a lot of people consider it un-re-watchable.

The only really bad picture on the list, though, is Return of the King. What a crashing bore. As with the books, the first of the LOTR movies is pretty good entertainment (though nowhere near great cinema), and then they just get progressively louder and more tedious.
   354. PreservedFish Posted: October 19, 2018 at 08:32 AM (#5770902)
I don't know when I became aware of Harry Potter, but I had a great illustration of what a phenomenon it was in the summer of 2000. I was working as a counselor at a summer camp (real Moonrise Kingdom style place) and one day without warning editions of the new volume began to arrive, via Amazon pre-orders. We had about 60 kids in our section and some 30+ received the book within a 2-3 day period, and a veritable silence fell over the camp, as all these spazzy 10 year olds took every free moment to bury themselves into this 600 page book. I don't know if there's ever been a publishing phenomenon like it.

Lassus said: Now, OF COURSE there is something about the books themselves that lends them to people going crazy over them. I do think a lot of what you're describing - from this layperson's advice - is sheer volume, however.

Sheer volume, sure, but I think this misses what a collective experience these books were, and how that volume doesn't just mean that x% of people were going to be nuts about it but how it actually had a snowballing effect that made everyone even more nuts about it. That the characters aged on a similar timeline as the readers, and that the books became longer and more adult, also seems important.

The college I went to later became known for its Quidditch team. WTF.

I don't even love the books, but I do think they are brilliant and wonderful for how successful they became and the influence they had on reading. Rowling deserves every last penny, and more power to her.

I agree. Eventually I read maybe two of the books - I think volumes 1 and 4 - and I wasn't enough of a fan to ever get close to sticking with it. I think the world-building for the pre-teen set is absolutely masterful, and I think the long arc stories about Harry's history, his relationship with Snape etc are tremendous. I liked it enough to see the movies and was curious enough about the plot to ask what happened as new volumes were published. But the wizarding world ultimately seems too thin, and some of the plotting seemed very dumb.

What I wonder about the adults that still adore the series is: how much of the appeal is nostalgic, and how much do they honestly think that it's just totally brilliant?
   355. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 19, 2018 at 08:32 AM (#5770903)
Academics sometimes play a game that David Lodge calls "Humiliation," where you reveal the most famous book you have never read, and the winner is the one who names the most famous of all (which can be scored as the book the most other people in the room have read).

That's an easy one: The Bible, unless you count the parts I was forced to read in college and promptly forgot 15 minutes later.

I've also never read Harry Potter or Shakespeare. Neither fantasy nor 16th/17th century language has ever had much attraction for me.

People just have different tastes, that's all. I'm sure we could all list countless books and movies that nobody else here has either read or seen.
   356. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 19, 2018 at 08:40 AM (#5770905)
Highest-placing movies on the imdb

If you want a better set to work on, try the first 50 on TSPDT**'s 1000-strong list:

1. (1) CITIZEN KANE (Orson Welles, 1941, USA, 119m, BW)
2. (2) VERTIGO (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958, USA, 128m, Col)
3. (3) 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (Stanley Kubrick, 1968, UK-USA, 139m, Col)
4. (4) RULES OF THE GAME, THE (Jean Renoir, 1939, France, 113m, BW)
5. (5) TOKYO STORY (Yasujiro Ozu, 1953, Japan, 134m, BW)
6. (7) GODFATHER, THE (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972, USA, 175m, Col)
7. (6) 8½ (Federico Fellini, 1963, Italy, 135m, BW)
8. (8) SUNRISE (F.W. Murnau, 1927, USA, 110m, BW)
9. (9) SEARCHERS, THE (John Ford, 1956, USA, 119m, Col)
10. (10) SEVEN SAMURAI (Akira Kurosawa, 1954, Japan, 200m, BW)

11. (11) APOCALYPSE NOW (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979, USA, 150m, Col)
12. (12) SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly, 1952, USA, 102m, Col)
13. (14) BICYCLE THIEVES (Vittorio De Sica, 1948, Italy, 90m, BW)
14. (13) BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (Sergei Eisenstein, 1925, USSR, 71m, BW)
15. (15) TAXI DRIVER (Martin Scorsese, 1976, USA, 113m, Col)
16. (16) PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, THE (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928, France, 110m, BW)
17. (17) BREATHLESS (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960, France, 89m, BW)
18. (18) ATALANTE, L' (Jean Vigo, 1934, France, 89m, BW)
19. (19) PERSONA (Ingmar Bergman, 1966, Sweden, 81m, BW)
20. (21) RASHOMON (Akira Kurosawa, 1950, Japan, 88m, BW)
21. (22) GODFATHER PART II, THE (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974, USA, 200m, Col)
22. (20) MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA, THE (Dziga Vertov, 1929, USSR, 80m, BW)
23. (23) RAGING BULL (Martin Scorsese, 1980, USA, 128m, BW)
24. (27) CITY LIGHTS (Charles Chaplin, 1931, USA, 86m, BW)
25. (25) 400 BLOWS, THE (François Truffaut, 1959, France, 99m, BW)
26. (26) PSYCHO (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960, USA, 109m, BW)
27. (24) ANDREI RUBLEV (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966, USSR, 185m, Col-BW)
28. (31) SOME LIKE IT HOT (Billy Wilder, 1959, USA, 119m, BW)
29. (29) MIRROR, THE (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1975, USSR, 108m, Col-BW)
30. (28) TOUCH OF EVIL (Orson Welles, 1958, USA, 108m, BW)
31. (30) DOLCE VITA, LA (Federico Fellini, 1960, Italy, 175m, BW)
32. (35) CASABLANCA (Michael Curtiz, 1942, USA, 102m, BW)
33. (32) LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (David Lean, 1962, UK, 216m, Col)
34. (33) ORDET (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1955, Denmark, 125m, BW)
35. (34) AU HASARD BALTHAZAR (Robert Bresson, 1966, France, 95m, BW)
36. (39) SUNSET BLVD. (Billy Wilder, 1950, USA, 110m, BW)
37. (36) AVVENTURA, L' (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960, Italy-France, 145m, BW)
38. (37) GENERAL, THE (Buster Keaton & Clyde Bruckman, 1926, USA, 74m, BW)
39. (40) BLADE RUNNER (Ridley Scott, 1982, USA, 118m, Col)
40. (38) CONTEMPT (Jean-Luc Godard, 1963, France-Italy, 103m, Col)
41. (41) REAR WINDOW (Alfred Hitchcock, 1954, USA, 112m, Col)
42. (42) GRANDE ILLUSION, LA (Jean Renoir, 1937, France, 117m, BW)
43. (43) NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, THE (Charles Laughton, 1955, USA, 93m, BW)
44. (48) MODERN TIMES (Charles Chaplin, 1936, USA, 89m, BW)
45. (45) IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE (Wong Kar-wai, 2000, Hong Kong-France, 97m, Col)
46. (44) THIRD MAN, THE (Carol Reed, 1949, UK, 104m, BW)
47. (50) PLAYTIME (Jacques Tati, 1967, France, 108m, Col)
48. (53) DR. STRANGELOVE OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB (Stanley Kubrick, 1964, UK-USA, 93m, BW)
49. (49) CHINATOWN (Roman Polanski, 1974, USA, 131m, Col)
50. (47) UGETSU MONOGATARI (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1953, Japan, 96m, BW)

** They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?
   357. BDC Posted: October 19, 2018 at 08:54 AM (#5770907)
That's a bit of a creaky list, Andy. Lots of great films on it, but only one made since 1983?
   358. PreservedFish Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:00 AM (#5770908)
I just spent a little while looking for a great "best movies ever" list but haven't found one I really love. They all either split with critics (Ozu in the top 10) or with fans (Shawshank Redemption / Star Wars in the top 10). I think the perfect list would mesh the two approaches.
   359. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:07 AM (#5770910)
Re: #356--
Apparently 27 of the best 50 movies ever made were released between 1950 and 1968, and 1 of the best 50 films ever made were from 1984 to 2018.

The best lists are the ones that make the individual ballots available. I'm not going to learn much from a consensus that reaffirms that yup, "Bicycle Thieves" is good. But if I see an individual critic whose top ten list includes (for example) "L'Atalante," "Boogie Nights" and "28 Up," you'd better believe I'm going to be interested in their list and their tastes.
   360. Greg K Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:17 AM (#5770915)
I just spent a little while looking for a great "best movies ever" list but haven't found one I really love. They all either split with critics (Ozu in the top 10) or with fans (Shawshank Redemption / Star Wars in the top 10). I think the perfect list would mesh the two approaches.

Several years ago some friends and I organized a movie tournament.

We aggregated a bunch of lists; drew up a list of nominations from participants we could all vote on; then gave everyone one or two spots to just unilaterally add a movie to the bunch.

In the end it spat out 64 movies that we could watch. 2 a week head-to-head winner advances.

Sadly it ran out of steam, partly because of wildly divergent tastes in movies within the group, and partly out of lack of dedication.
   361. manchestermets Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:19 AM (#5770917)
Doesn't Wings usually show up on lists like the one Andy just posted? I clicked through, and it's not even in the top 1000.
   362. jmurph Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:29 AM (#5770922)
That's a weird list that Andy posted. To be the kind of list that prominently features Ozu and Dreyer and Renoir but then also puts 2001 at number 3 is just incomprehensible to me.

Quick thoughts on it:
- Does anyone agree that Taxi Driver (15) is a better movie than Raging Bull (23) in the Scorsese division?
- 2001, or any Kubrick for that matter, shouldn't be nearly this high.
- Both Godfathers are way too high.
- Chinatown is the best American movie of the 70s and should be ranked accordingly.
   363. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:33 AM (#5770924)
"Wings" doesn't have any special reputation except for having won the first Best Picture Oscar. It's pretty good is what it is. If anything, "Wings" is resented by the types of people who vote on all-time lists, because for the first Academy Awards ceremony only, they made a distinction between "Outstanding Picture" and "Best Unique and Artistic Picture." The movie "Sunrise" won the latter, and it's still considered an impressionistic poetic gem, with some believing it's the last great silent film. But in the Oscar annals, the two categories were effectively merged the second year into a single award. And by that retroactive calculation, "Wings" gets to be first, and "Sunrise" gets to be nowhere.
   364. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:34 AM (#5770925)
That's a bit of a creaky list, Andy. Lots of great films on it, but only one made since 1983?

It's just another list, a counterpart to imdb's. And there are quite a few post-1983 films that should have been on there. Here's that same site's top 10 from the 21st century:

The 10 Most Acclaimed Films of the 21st Century
1. IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE Wong Kar-wai
2. MULHOLLAND DR. David Lynch
3. YI YI Edward Yang
4. THERE WILL BE BLOOD Paul Thomas Anderson
5. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND Michel Gondry
6. CACHÉ Michael Haneke
7. THE TREE OF LIFE Terrence Malick
8. SPIRITED AWAY Hayao Miyazaki
9. TROPICAL MALADY Apichatpong Weerasethakul
10. BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN Ang Lee

And if you want to restrict it to 2017, they offer this:

TSPDT's 50 Most Critically-Acclaimed Films of 2017 (based on 2017 end-of-year ballots only)
1. GET OUT Jordan Peele
2. CALL ME BY YOUR NAME Luca Guadagnino
3. THE FLORIDA PROJECT Sean Baker
4. LADY BIRD Greta Gerwig
5. DUNKIRK Christopher Nolan
6. FACES PLACES Agnès Varda & JR
7. THE SHAPE OF WATER Guillermo del Toro
8. TWIN PEAKS: THE RETURN David Lynch
9. PHANTOM THREAD Paul Thomas Anderson
10. A GHOST STORY David Lowery
11. THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI Martin McDonagh
12. WESTERN Valeska Grisebach
13. GOOD TIME Ben Safdie & Joshua Safdie
14. ZAMA Lucrecia Martel
15. A QUIET PASSION Terence Davies
16. BLADE RUNNER 2049 Denis Villeneuve
17. MOTHER! Darren Aronofsky
18. MUDBOUND Dee Rees
19. PERSONAL SHOPPER Olivier Assayas
20. BABY DRIVER Edgar Wright
21. LOVELESS Andrey Zvyagintsev
22. EX LIBRIS: THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY Frederick Wiseman
23. NOCTURAMA Bertrand Bonello
24. THE SQUARE Ruben Östlund
25. I AM NOT YOUR NEGRO Raoul Peck
26. RAW Julia Ducournau
27. LADY MACBETH William Oldroyd
28. BPM (BEATS PER MINUTE) Robin Campillo
29. MOONLIGHT Barry Jenkins
30. THE BIG SICK Michael Showalter
31. COLUMBUS Kogonada
32. I, TONYA Craig Gillespie
33. OKJA Bong Joon-ho
34. GOD'S OWN COUNTRY Francis Lee
35. DETROIT Kathryn Bigelow
36. THE KILLING OF A SACRED DEER Yorgos Lanthimos
37. LET THE SUN SHINE IN Claire Denis
38. LOGAN James Mangold
39. THE POST Steven Spielberg
40. A FANTASTIC WOMAN Sebastián Lelio
41. DAWSON CITY: FROZEN TIME Bill Morrison
42. GRADUATION Cristian Mungiu
43. THE LOST CITY OF Z James Gray
44. WONDER WOMAN Patty Jenkins
45. YOU WERE NEVER REALLY HERE Lynne Ramsay
46. SILENCE Martin Scorsese
47. STRONG ISLAND Yance Ford
48. THE OTHER SIDE OF HOPE Aki Kaurismäki
49. CERTAIN WOMEN Kelly Reichardt
50. THE MEYEROWITZ STORIES (NEW AND SELECTED) Noah Baumbach

   365. PreservedFish Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:38 AM (#5770927)
I think The Godfather is a very natural choice for the best movie of all time. Piggybacking on my comment in #358, it's one of the few movies that invariably shows up near the top of both critic and audience polls.
   366. manchestermets Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:39 AM (#5770928)
#363: Fair enough. Still - I've not got the inclination to actually go through and check, but I wonder how many best picture winners aren't on the top 1000 list?
   367. Lassus Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:40 AM (#5770930)
The only really bad picture on the list, though, is Return of the King.

While I'm all-in on the CSI (if a bit hipstery as far as early days being way better), this here is kinda horseshit. Calling Return of the King a bad film is really not true.
   368. BDC Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:43 AM (#5770935)
Calling Return of the King a bad film is really not true


Maybe an eccentric opinion then. I just kept waiting for it to be over, and after the third or fourth ending, it finally was :)
   369. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:46 AM (#5770937)
That's a weird list that Andy posted. To be the kind of list that prominently features Ozu and Dreyer and Renoir but then also puts 2001 at number 3 is just incomprehensible to me.

It's a consensus list, not one person's opinion. FWIW I agree with you about 2001, which I wouldn't put in the top 300, let alone #3.
The number of best-of/all-time individual lists now tallies 6,016 (from 4,743 critics/filmmakers). The number of miscellaneous lists used (genre-based, country-based, etc.) now sits at 3,801. That’s 9,817 unique lists in total.


Quick thoughts on it:
- Does anyone agree that Taxi Driver (15) is a better movie than Raging Bull (23) in the Scorsese division?


I can hardly think of a Scorsese movie I wouldn't rank right up there. A year ago I would've put Raging Bull over Taxi Driver, but now I'm not so sure. And in any case, I'd put Mean Streets, Goodfellas, The Departed and at least 2 or 3 others over either of them.

- 2001, or any Kubrick for that matter, shouldn't be nearly this high.

Totally agree.

- Both Godfathers are way too high.

Totally disagree, though I like to watch The Godfather Epic version that shows up on HBO.

- Chinatown is the best American movie of the 70s and should be ranked accordingly.

Chinatown's a great movie, but just off the top of my head I'd go with Breaking Away, which is one of the tiny number of Feelgood movies that I can watch for more than the first 10 minutes. But maybe I'm prejudiced because I love IU.
   370. PreservedFish Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:47 AM (#5770939)
Return of the King definitely had a multiple endings thing going on. That was awkward. I loved it, but I'm a fan of the books, and was happy to see it come alive on the big screen. Haven't revisited it. If I didn't have kids I could imagine getting high and watching all of the LOTRs in a row on a rainy Sunday. That might need to wait until retirement. Or until they're old enough to join in.
   371. BDC Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:55 AM (#5770946)
At least they didn't do the Scouring of the Shire. Or did they? I may have been asleep along the way.
   372. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:55 AM (#5770947)
I came to the "Lord of the Rings" movies with no preexisting personal investment. Other than Andy Serkis, they're very easy to forget about.
   373. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:55 AM (#5770948)
Return of the King definitely had a multiple endings thing going on. That was awkward. I loved it, but I'm a fan of the books, and was happy to see it come alive on the big screen. Haven't revisited it. If I didn't have kids I could imagine getting high and watching all of the LOTRs in a row on a rainy Sunday. That might need to wait until retirement. Or until they're old enough to join in.


RotK was plenty good. My personal favorite movie in the series was Fellowship, maybe because my expectations we so low going into it. It is a good series, which is why the Hobbit travesty (travesty undersells it) if so inexplicable in how awful (awful undersells it) it is.

EDIT: And yes I found the multiple endings in RotK to be kind of dumb in an amusing "will this movie ever end?" sort of way. And having read the books I got what was going on.
   374. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 19, 2018 at 09:58 AM (#5770950)
Back to TV. Anyone who is interested in religion or philosophy even a little bit really should be watching The Good Place. It is astonishing how they manage to make an enjoyable half hour comedy also handle many complex religious and philosophical issues in a nuanced and complex fashion.

It is not my favorite ongoing series (Hi Expanse, how is it going?), but it is easily top 5.
   375. Rennie's Tenet Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:06 AM (#5770954)
I don't know when I became aware of Harry Potter, but


I actually knew a guy named Harry Potter, saw a Time Magazine cover (HARRY POTTER!) and thought it was like one of those vanity newspapers where your birthday is the headline.
   376. jmurph Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:10 AM (#5770957)
I came to the "Lord of the Rings" movies with no preexisting personal investment. Other than Andy Serkis, they're very easy to forget about.

I disagree- I will never forget how little I enjoyed Lord of the Rings.
   377. PreservedFish Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM (#5770960)
My question is, do super artsy lists like the one Andy linked give short shrift to the mainstream Hollywood tradition? Many of those films are basically Alternative - their innovations don't really work without reference to conventional filmmaking.

In the family tree of world cinema, Rashomon or Breathless may be stout branches, but Casablanca is part of the trunk.
   378. Lassus Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:14 AM (#5770963)
At least they didn't do the Scouring of the Shire. Or did they?

No. This was one of the biggest fanrage responses of the time.


Other than Andy Serkis, they're very easy to forget about.

I think this might be a genre thing. I don't necessarily see you, from your history, as a big fan of the genre? I had read the books way too young and therefore had similar minimal pre-existing involvement. I think they were excellent films through and through.
   379. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:17 AM (#5770966)
My question is, do super artsy lists like the one Andy linked give short shrift to the mainstream Hollywood tradition?


Yes.



Yet another edition of easy answers to questions posed.
   380. PreservedFish Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:17 AM (#5770969)
No. This was one of the biggest fanrage responses of the time.

Wait people were mad about it? That part sucks. Cutting the Scouring and Tom Bombodil were no-brainers.
   381. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:18 AM (#5770970)
At least they didn't do the Scouring of the Shire. Or did they?

No. This was one of the biggest fanrage responses of the time.


Not in the theater release, but I thought there was an extended DVD that had that in it. I could easily be wrong though.
   382. jmurph Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:18 AM (#5770971)
My question is, do super artsy lists like the one Andy linked give short shrift to the mainstream Hollywood tradition? Many of those films are basically Alternative - their innovations don't really work without reference to conventional filmmaking.

In the family tree of world cinema, Rashomon or Breathless may be stout branches, but Casablanca is part of the trunk.

I don't think that list is that artsy, is it? It's more or less the canon, if in a weird order. Do you have specific things in mind that are missing? I think there's a lot of Hollywood in there already.
   383. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:20 AM (#5770973)
My question is, do super artsy lists like the one Andy linked give short shrift to the mainstream Hollywood tradition? Many of those films are basically Alternative - their innovations don't really work without reference to conventional filmmaking.

In the family tree of world cinema, Rashomon or Breathless may be stout branches, but Casablanca is part of the trunk.


FTR that super artsy list has Casablanca at #32.
   384. Lassus Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5770974)
Wait people were mad about it?

More of a NOT TRUE TO THE BOOKS complaint. But to my memory, one of the most repeated.
   385. jmurph Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5770976)
My question is, do super artsy lists like the one Andy linked give short shrift to the mainstream Hollywood tradition?
Yes.

I mean this as a genuine question, not rhetorical, but what are the obvious Hollywood misses? To me the main problem is the lack of recent stuff, I'd start there if making that list better. EDIT: So like, using their parameters, basically pre-1990, what are the big misses?
   386. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5770979)
I disagree- I will never forget how little I enjoyed Lord of the Rings.

I feel like I'm the only one who didn't enjoy the LOTR trilogy. I'm not a complete weirdo!

On film lists, is it even possible to have a list that would please anyone? For me, if Medium Cool and Synecdoche New York aren't in your top 10 then your list is a failure. But I am 100% certain I'm the only one who feels this way. I just assume everyone is just as idiosyncratic when it comes to art.
   387. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:24 AM (#5770982)
I don't think that list is that artsy, is it? It's more or less the canon, if in a weird order. Do you have specific things in mind that are missing? I think there's a lot of Hollywood in there already.

Of course there is, including 5 of the top 10: Citizen Kane, Vertigo, 2001, The Godfather, and The Searchers.
   388. jmurph Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:26 AM (#5770987)
Of course there is, including 5 of the top 10: Citizen Kane, Vertigo, 2001, The Godfather, and The Searchers.

Right. As Gonfalon pointed out, the main issue seems to be that they slept through the 90s, a time that saw a lot of great (especially American) stuff being made.
   389. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:27 AM (#5770988)
Not in the theater release, but I thought there was an extended DVD that had that in it. I could easily be wrong though.


It's not in the extended edition of RotK.

Besides, to add it, they'd have to go back and reshoot scenes from the Two Towers and add *that* footage into a new edition of that film, since they kill Saruman in that film.*

*Or make additional downstream changes that would make the book fans howl ...

   390. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:29 AM (#5770990)
I mean this as a genuine question, not rhetorical, but what are the obvious Hollywood misses? To me the main problem is the lack of recent stuff, I'd start there if making that list better. EDIT: So like, using their parameters, basically pre-1990, what are the big misses?


I think the disconnect is more basic than that. Hollywood is a business. Making money is the deal. Arty types making list of great movies (ART!) is (for obvious reasons) not about making money.

There is an obvious intersection between making a quality move that is both art and money making, but still there is a disconnect as well.
   391. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:30 AM (#5770993)
On film lists, is it even possible to have a list that would please anyone? For me, if Medium Cool and Synecdoche New York aren't in your top 10 then your list is a failure. But I am 100% certain I'm the only one who feels this way. I just assume everyone is just as idiosyncratic when it comes to art.

I think that's a safe assumption, at least among those who don't rely on polls or box office receipts to form their own preferences.

AFAIC if your list doesn't begin with Angi Vera, you're probably a cryto-Commie. If The Battle of Algiers isn't in your top 10, you're an apologist for French colonialism. And so on.
   392. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:32 AM (#5770997)
#378:
I think this might be a genre thing. I don't necessarily see you, from your history, as a big fan of the genre?


I like a bunch of superhero movies, so don't think I'm Ozu-ing you from a perch here. I also liked the Harry Potter books a lot, and the movies are fine to functional, depending. What genre are you calling the "Lord of the Rings" movies? If it's fantasy, spectacle, world-building, etc, any ten minute segment of "The Princess Bride" or "Spirited Away" or "The Wizard of Oz" or "Brazil" or "Mad Max: Fury Road" outdoes the whole of "Lord of the Rings" saga for me. I even got more of a kick out of "Cloud Atlas," and that movie made no f'ing sense. I'm not trying to convince anyone; I understand how many boxes "LOTR" ticks for many people. The special effects are good, but everybody's special effects are good now. I did think they did an eye-catching job on the Rock Em Sock Em mountain giants.
   393. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:33 AM (#5771001)
I think the disconnect is more basic than that. Hollywood is a business. Making money is the deal. Arty types making list of great movies (ART!) is (for obvious reasons) not about making money.

There is an obvious intersection between making a quality move that is both art and money making, but still there is a disconnect as well.


I think you mean "making tons of money in their first theatrical release". Most if not all of the movies on that all-time list are easily in the black.
   394. PreservedFish Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:34 AM (#5771002)
I don't think that list is that artsy, is it? It's more or less the canon, if in a weird order. Do you have specific things in mind that are missing? I think there's a lot of Hollywood in there already.


Of course it's artsy. It is canon. It's the artsy canon. Bresson, Ozu, Tarkovsky ... these directors have less than zero appeal to most movie fans.

EDIT: So like, using their parameters, basically pre-1990, what are the big misses?


Check out the AFI Top 100 list.
   395. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:35 AM (#5771005)
On the LotR movies, overall I think they're pretty decent. I certainly don't expect to ever see better adaptations of the source material, even though I have a myriad of problems with many of Jackson's choices.

I just wish we'd gotten more Heavenly Creatures Peter Jackson and less King Kong Peter Jackson ...

Somewhere on the intertubes there's a fan cut of the Hobbit movies, mashing all three (extended) into a single 3 1/2 or 4 hour cut (only watched it once, can't find it on my HD right now), excising much of the worst of the flabbage that exists in the films (hey, no more elf/dwarf shipping!).

It's almost watchable ...
   396. jmurph Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:35 AM (#5771006)
I think the disconnect is more basic than that. Hollywood is a business. Making money is the deal. Arty types making list of great movies (ART!) is (for obvious reasons) not about making money.

There is an obvious intersection between making a quality move that is both art and money making, but still there is a disconnect as well.

But there's a ton of Hollywood movies on that list.
   397. PreservedFish Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:40 AM (#5771011)
Here's a slice of the AFI list:


19. ON THE WATERFRONT (1954)
View Details
20. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)
View Details
21. CHINATOWN (1974)
View Details
22. SOME LIKE IT HOT (1959)
View Details
23. THE GRAPES OF WRATH (1940)
View Details
24. E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (1982)
View Details
25. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962)
View Details
26. MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939)
View Details
27. HIGH NOON (1952)
View Details
28. ALL ABOUT EVE (1950)
View Details
29. DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944)
View Details
30. APOCALYPSE NOW (1979)
View Details
31. THE MALTESE FALCON (1941)

A lot of movies here that most would identify as spectacular golden age Hollywood films.

Obviously an artsy film nerd might find this list more staid, conservative and boring (even ignoring the whole "Muricans only!" aspect of it) than Andy's list.
   398. jmurph Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:40 AM (#5771013)
Of course it's artsy. It is canon. It's the artsy canon. Bresson, Ozu, Tarkovsky ... these directors have less than zero appeal to most movie fans.
Check out the AFI Top 100 list.

I think "most movie fans" would consider that AFI list to be pretty damn artsy, too.

But the main differences I see are that A. they realized movies didn't stop being produced after the 70s and B. there are no foreign language movies included. There's a lot of overlap, though.
   399. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:43 AM (#5771014)
Let me expound on that a bit with two examples. Jaws and Star Wars are two of the most important movies of the 70s and perhaps all time.

Both movies were very well crafted, have some degree of artistic merit (tastes vary of course), crazy popular with people, made a ton of money, and in many respects changed Hollywood and movie making even unto today.

I have no issue with lists excluding one or both of those movies, people get to like what they want. There are plenty of metrics one can use that would result in both movies scoring low.

But if you factor in what people want to see (both popularity at the time and enduring popularity) and/or factor in the business of making movies and how a movie changes that business then things change, then your list changes.

Arty lists always feel to me like an exercise in pretending movies are not part of a business and not something for the common folk to enjoy. Rather they are frozen in time works of art to be displayed in musty museums* and enjoyed only by those in the know.

I want a list to describe what metric they are judging the movies by, hopefully without arrogantly assuming there is only one right way to enjoy movies.

* Note: I love museums, by the way.
   400. jmurph Posted: October 19, 2018 at 10:46 AM (#5771018)
Flip
Page 4 of 8 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThe Yankees Now Have a Second Ace | FanGraphs Baseball
(65 - 5:05am, Nov 22)
Last: Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle

NewsblogCalcaterra - Adrián Beltré Retires, is a Slam Dunk Hall of Famer
(50 - 4:25am, Nov 22)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Gonfalon CubsNow what?
(250 - 4:20am, Nov 22)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogDrafting High School Pitchers Is a Major Problem for MLB, Health of Young Prospects
(10 - 2:48am, Nov 22)
Last: Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle

NewsblogManny Machado reflects on hustle comments | MLB.com
(12 - 2:34am, Nov 22)
Last: Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2720 - 1:18am, Nov 22)
Last: Red Voodooin

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(665 - 12:51am, Nov 22)
Last: Morty Causa

Sox TherapySox Therapy Looks at the Hall of Fame Ballot
(5 - 12:47am, Nov 22)
Last: The Run Fairy

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(336 - 11:28pm, Nov 21)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogBreaking Down the New Players on This Year’s Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot
(6 - 9:55pm, Nov 21)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogThe Braves' Profits Provide a Glimpse into Baseball's Books
(3 - 8:46pm, Nov 21)
Last: BillWallace

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2018
(13 - 7:55pm, Nov 21)
Last: AndrewJ

Newsblog2019 BBWAA HALL OF FAME BALLOT
(82 - 6:34pm, Nov 21)
Last: JoeC

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(201 - 4:12pm, Nov 21)
Last: Carl Goetz

NewsblogAvid Barry Bonds Collector Has Amassed 5,000 Examples Of The Same Card
(36 - 4:12pm, Nov 21)
Last: jmurph

Page rendered in 0.7053 seconds
46 querie(s) executed