Jump to content

Talk:List of films voted the best

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.231.28.185 (talk) at 08:14, 4 September 2010 (→‎Propaganda film). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconFilm List‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

  Basic guidelines for inclusion
This article took a good deal of effort by many people to reach its current form. If you would like to add a film to this article, please follow the guidelines below. Failure to follow these guidelines may result in the film being removed from the list.

  • Keep the entry short. The most relevant thing to mention is how the film is considered to be the greatest. People can follow the link to the film to find out more about it.
  • The film MUST be cited as THE BEST (or perhaps second best) in the category where it is being listed. It is not enough for a citation to say "one of the best", or "considered by many". The citation can be from polls of critics, audience polls or some explicit system of ranking awards or reviews. Editorial picks by the staff of a periodical or website are usually not sufficiently broad enough in their scope to be included.
  • Citations for the best films from a specific country should either be from sources from that country or from world-wide recognition. For example, it is not enough to be the favorite Italian film in America.
  • This article strives to be NPOV about OTHER PEOPLE's POV. The POV of editors does not matter.
  • Footnotes, Footnotes, Footnotes. If you don't want editors immediately deleting your work, please provide a link to the page where you found the citation.
  • Please discuss page moves in advance.

Sci-fi

Where are Star Wars Episodes IV and V and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, both are much better films than E.T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.124.228 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which had the biggest budget? Which spent the most on advertising? Which generated the most box office receipts? Of course, all of these variables are interrelated, and there is no practical way of isolating one variable without compromising the others. If we ignored technological differences, Robinson Crusoe on Mars, Fantastic Planet, Forbidden Planet, The Time Machine (1960 film), and When Worlds Collide are all up in the running. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong?

Why was King Kong remove on the list? It had a sorce and everything! --71.178.250.89 (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it did not have a citation specifically mentioning it as being "the best" of the genre. Being one of 100 films on Time's list is only a citation for being "one of the the 100 best films according to Time", nothing more. It seems unreasonable to imply that because there is only one film of a particular genre on a "best film" list, the mention equals a citation for being the best of the genre. That would be original research because the film may have been selected for reasons that have nothing to do with being the best of the genre. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete this page.

While I don't disagree with the fact that you can at least narrow down several films which many consider great, this page is misleading. What purpose does it serve? The movies it lists are extremely inconsistent, and this page changes all the time. People will like what they like, and I think it is unfair that wikipedia, a generally factual resource, includes such a subjective topic as this and other polls. I also think that we should delete links to reviews for films and music. What other refutable encyclopedia does this? You cannot systematically grade personal taste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.181.59 (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the page is to list those films that have been previously recognized by a variety of critics and organization. The opinions of these films are not of Wikipedia users, but of a variety of organizations. Sephirothson (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the notoriety of the sources, they don't constitute an article. The citations are to sources of opinion which should, in my opinion, be added to the articles of their respective films. OlYellerTalktome 18:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the page should be deleted, Its very opinionated (yes i know its all sourced from other people) but still who has the deciding line on what the greatest film, there are many variants. This sort of page is suited to someones' blog, not a Wikipedia article. Its a fine line to what should be on Wikipedia but this i think should be deleted. IMBlackMath (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although this page somewhat irks me, I believe it would most likely make it through a deletion proposal with a Keep decision. The article is technically 100% factual in that it is stating, "so and so thinks this movie is the greatest." Personally, I think that this sort of information on critic and audience opinions should be reserved for the individual entries for the films, and that an attempt to build a list such as this is inherently flawed. Specifically, my problem is that the personal opinions of Wikipedians are bound to show up in this article in that, in many cases, I believe that with enough searching you could find somebody's list that has your favorite movie on top. Of course, the failsafe against this is that editors must decide whether or not that "somebody" is a notable critic worthy of being mentioned in an encyclopedia article. Then again, there could be debate as to what critics make the cut for this article: the American Film Institute, Esquire Magazine, Gene Shalit's cousin's roommate's blog... where do we draw the line. So this is my problem with this article; however, again, I don't know if that necessarily warrants deletion. If anyone truly believes that the article should go, then propose deletion again and we'll discuss further there. JohnnyGrungetta (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails on so many levels it is embarrassing. First, why is there no definition of what "greatest" means? Box office revenue? Popular culture impact? Number of Top 10 lists? And greatest for whom? British tastes and American tastes are wildly different, never mind gender or class or age or race. Without a clear definition of what great is all you get is about a dozen Wiki editor's pet movies with "citation needed" after most. The fact that the BBC Channel 4, Yahoo!Movies, the IGN, Entertainment Weekly and "readers of The Observer" are all used in the same article without any editorial comment as to what this means other than someone found the title on some list, somewhere, renders the article useless. Come on, people, DigitalDreamDoor.com as a source of non-biased information? or "What's Opera, Doc? (1957) was voted the greatest animated short in animation historian Jerry Beck's 1994 poll" ... so what? who is Jerry Beck and why should anyone care? After finishing the article I still have no idea what makes a movie "great," which is the whole point of the article, isn't it? As they say in the movies, "we should nuke it from orbit" and get someone who can actually be editorial in here. --Himeyuri (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article is pretty awful

For starters films listed such as Battleship Potemkin and for that matter Citizen Kane are not remembered because they are thought to be the best films, but because they are historically significant films, and will be forever shown in Film courses as examples of pioneering political films, the first baby carriage on the steps, or the first use of rack focus. So for what it's worth, a big fail for this page and it should be deleted, not only is it subjective, it's inaccurate and shows a lack of understanding of the subject matter. --APDEF (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering

Not to intrude, but about the order of how you list the films in the Particular Genre section... it seems that you aren't, actually. It looks more like it's just the order you put them there. Shouldn't they be listed by year, or something? Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bourne Ultimatum

There is no citation given for Ultimatum. The sentence just reads "Bourne Ultimatum 2007 is considered the best action movie of all time", which really doesn't make any sense. Dancemotron (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animation as a genre

Animation is not a genre, it is a medium that can handle any genre. You wouldn't say 'the genre of animation' no more than you would say 'the genre of black & white film' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siskavard (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the film genre article, animation IS a genre of film. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Siskavard on this one. Because something is filmed in a certain medium, that does not make that certain medium a genre. The genre deals with the content of the film, not the kind of medium that the film-makers decided to film it in. If The Shining had been done in animation instead of live-action, it would still be considered a horror film. If The Simpsons Movie had been shot in live-action, it would still be considered a comedy. The medium that a film is shot in is not the genre that that film belongs to because it is not a genre; it is a medium. —Preceding edmonton_guy comment added by Edmonton guy (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not worth arguing whether animation is a genre or a medium. Since there are citations for the best animated film, I've changed the heading of the section to accommodate both genres and media. --☑ SamuelWantman 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animation as a medium is a holy war. We haven't finish yet the quest "Animation is not only for kids", so... One day we could say that Perfect Blue was one of the best psycho-horror movie ever. Lacrymocéphale 16:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first universal poll organized at the Brussels World’s Fair in 1958.

I have added the 10 films chosen on that important occasion by thousands of critics and filmmakers from all over the world. Alexemanuel (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that one genre has been omitted

I think one genre has been omitted in your list : historical films and/or peplums. What about "Ben Hur", "Cleopatra", "The Ten Commandments", "Ivanhoe", "The Cid", "War and Peace", ... This omittion must be corrected ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.70.42.54 (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a citaion, add a section... -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And porn. Macarion (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New AFI poll

And this one looks like it was made just for this page.

[1]

Alot of these are already on the article, but there are a few new ones. No horror, sadly. --PlasmaTwa2 21:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFI lists

Since the AFI only considers American films, they should only be used as a reference for the "United States" section. Short of any good argument to the contrary, I will remove all mentions of the AFI lists elsewhere in the article. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really thing AFI considers only American films. The James Bond series is British, and it has been on at least two of the lists. However, the list is American, and the winners are all American. We had something similar to this back when there was a 'television shows considered the greatest', when a British poll called Frasier the best show. We moved it to the British section because it was decided by the British. --PlasmaTwa2 21:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial teams

There are several entries on the list that are the picks of editorial teams of a magazine or website. I would like to remove all of them. We should either restrict this list to polls of film watchers or film makers, or alternatively add sections for editorial teams or noted film writers. I'd like to hear the opinions of others about this. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 17:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for comments. For example, I'd like to remove all the IGN mentions. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no objections, so I am now removing all entries from editorial teams. I'm leaving magazine pics if they were the result of an audience or critcs. A poll of the staff of a magazine or website does not seem sufficient for this article. --☑ SamuelWantman 06:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Among the "Audience polls", there is this insertion: Schindler's List (1993) was voted the best film ever made by the German film magazine Cinema. It doesn't belong there, since it's based on only one German magazine.ValeriaMil (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad article in need of cleanup

I removed the bottom three links to dubious links. This article is in terible shape. First, all three links seem to be blatant promotional links. Second, the Films 101 link is nothing but a link page to lists, many of which are not valid. The Filmsite links list other lists. The final list, by They Shoot- an obscure website, is a disaster- no methodology, and obscure claims of combining other lists, but with no way to verify. All three do not fit with more established and direct lists and links as in the remaining links. These go directly to lists that are single sourced and verifiable, not from dubious sources with even worse methodologies and promoting blatant commercial interests. Lazarus86 (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of list

In seeing the general positive trend on this page the last few days, and with the removal of other dubious lists, I have removed a list of equally dubious content. There seems to be a consensus that lists need to be from a reliable outlet and with a single confirmable source. Thus, I have removed a list from a page that was mislabeled, and also one that revealed no reason for its rankings, just vague claims. Finally, the source is not an international nor respected group nor publication, so its claims are not particularly noteworthy. 209.30.131.100 (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtroom Drama

Is this even a actual genre? Seems like AFI just made this one up so they could give an award to To Kill a Mockingbird. I ahve never heard of this genre before, and even if it does exist, it is a sub-genre of drama. It's like putting something like Hostel on this page cause people voted it the best torture porn horror. --PlasmaTwa2 00:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Genres are just made up for reasons unknown, so calling Courtroom Drama a genre isn't any more wrong than calling horror, epic, crime or western a genre.

How could you not have heard of this genre? Do you watch movies at all? Court room drama movies just from the top of my head: 12 Angry Men, Justice for All, A Few Good Men, Primal Fear, Inherit the Wind, A Time to Kill...etc. - and hundreds of bad television shows as well.

unuseful comment

I'd like to slap a big fat template at the top that says:

user:Everyme 01:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book Film

It is safe to say that the Dark Knight will easily surpass Spiderman 2 as the greatest film of the superhero genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.245.241 (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can say it all you want, but if you want to add it to this article, you should find a citation from a poll of audience members or critics that calls it "the greatest film of the superhero genre". If, as you say it will surpass Superman 2, you will have to wait until it actually does so. It is not our job to speculate on the future. - ☑ SamuelWantman 05:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IGN has cited The Dark Knight to be the greatest comic book film or something of that calibre, if IGN is sufficient source for you. Zero no Kamen (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the favorite film of the small staff of a magazine devoted to video games constitutes a poll of critics or audience. I've been removing mention of Time magazine's pick for the same reason, as well as many other editorial picks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Waltz

Does the Last Waltz deserve to be on this list? All of the citations given are from lone critics who call it the best ever. The movie topped no poll or survey, so untill better citation is given I am removing it. --PlasmaTwa2 03:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes reverted

I've reverted most of the changes since Oct 26th. All of the entries missing citations were removed. I don't think missing a citation is sufficient reason to remove something. If information is missing a citation, and is challenged because it appears to be wrong, then it would be fair to remove it pending a citation. For information that appears to be correct, it is better to leave it tagged as lacking a citation, and let editors find citations for the information. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going back and removing anything without a citation. If you want to put it back in, cite it. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 20:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't make sense to me. I didn't add the stuff, and most of it is accurate. Why don't you leave it and help find citations. Do you think any of it is wrong? Then remove the ones you challenge. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is Verifibility, not truth. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 22:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but verifiability doesn't mean that you remove everything that is missing a citation, especially for items that have existed in this article for years, some of which are common knowledge to film buffs and their verifiability has never been unquestioned after thousands of edits. It would be much more helpful to the project if you took a less aggressive tact. Removing uncited material is not a black and white issue. You've trashed sections of this article for no good reason and haven't made any attempts to help fix it. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with putting them back in, if they have sources. the lists on wikipedia have really low standards, and i'm trying to fix them up. It doesn't matter if it's common knowledge that a film is great, it's about Verifibility, not truth It's one of wikipedia's core policies and people have really ignored it. I'm here to help stop that. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 18:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been removing crap from this list for four years. You show up and think that you are improving things by removing paragraphs about Sight and Sound listing Citizen Kane as the greatest film tells me that you don't know much about this subject, and are blindly removing things because they are missing citations. This is not helpful. You did not remove things that were listed just because of common knowledge considering them great (I would remove those as well), you removed things that were listed with a source for why they were considered great (like Sight and Sound), but just lacking the specific citation. I've always tried to leave things which are likely to become cited and have a source. Many of the films mention the Sight and Sound rankings and the Village Voice list. Both have been linked to this article for years, from before there even was a system for adding citations. They've only recently been tagged for not having citations, and that was not because their veracity is being challenged, but an attempt to bring this article up to current standards. I don't see a good reason to remove them, and you have not convinced me otherwise. I'm reverting. Please help add citations. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted back for 2 reasons. 1 is verifibility. I removed everything that didn't have a source. If you want to include it in the article, source it and also, when you reverted my edits, you removed some sources i included. please try not do this. It doesn't matter how long you've been editing this article, it went against one of wikipedia's core policies. Direct quote from WP:V Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. and a quote directly from Jimbo wales himself: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

- -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 19:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. The information is not challenged or likely to be challenged, It is sourced, but merely missing the correct citation particulars. These are not random speculative pseudo information. If they were I'd have no problem with removing them. This has nothing to do with living people. If you are going to quote Jimmy, you should do it correctly. Are you claiming that any of the removed material is challenged or likely to be challenged? If so, then make a challenge on this talk page and we'll discuss it. Until then, I'm putting it back the way it was, and let's get some other oppinions here. And by the way, you are continuing to remove Citizen Kane, even after I added a citation. Which makes me think you aren't even checking what is going on on the page. I've tried to put back the changes that happened in between each of our reverts. If I missed a few, I'm sorry. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful, when you reverted my edit, you removed the IMDB sources that i added in. Looking back, i probably should have not removed everything, but instead add the proper {{fact}} tags. Just please help add citations, later this week, i'll use everyone's best friend to make this article a little better. Sorry I'f i've been conter-productive. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 22:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German films

where are the German films? I know Das Boot, Europa Europa, and Downfall have been cited as their best. I put them on the page, but they were deleted. Can anyone find citations for these?Tallicfan20 (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decades of heavy taxation at the ticket office (every ticket has a secret tax that the consumer doesn't know of, but which the theater operator must keep track of) led to the dampening of the film industry in Germany. After World War II was over, German theater concerns found it more economical to buy American films and dub them in German, and this caused an overall net loss of creativity, and a transfer of "theater dollars" to American production companies. So it basically comes down to funding, unfortunately. Don't blame Germans for the crappy movies they make, blame the heavy taxes that keep draining all their creativity away. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

Why isn't Germany mentioned here? Das Boot is considered one of the greatest films ever.- JustPhil 00:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By whom? There needs to be a reliable source that it is considered one of the greatest films ever. --PlasmaTwa2 01:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added germany, with M as the best film, since it's has the highest rating in the IMDb (at least to my knowledge, I hope I didn't miss anything). I propably wouldn't hurt if German people could give some info on, what is considered to be the best german film by them. --81.175.196.110 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imdb considers M the best and Das Boot the second best german film ever. In the global Top250 they run as number 57 and 66 respectively. source: http://www.imdb.de/chart/top?tt0082096 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.180.216.217 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This has subsequently changed. Das Leben der Anderen is ranked above M: http://www.imdb.com/chart/top

There are also a number of other top German films which have been neglected from this list, including Metropolis, Das Boot, Nesferatu, Der blaue Engel, Der Untergang, Die Baader Meinhof Komplex (though, admittedly, this is too new to be considered), Goodbye Lenin!, and Lola rennt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.121.82 (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis really doesn't belong there, by it's IMDB merits. It's not the best or even the second best German movie in IMDB, not in top 250 or in general. I'm sure there are a lot of good sources that put Metropolis to it's rightfull place, but IMDB isn't one of them. Wasn't this article about films considered best, and not just very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.54.59 (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Films removed from the India section

Here is what I have removed the following from the India section, and my reasons...

  • Mother India (1957) Considered as one of the greatest Indian films of all time. It became the first Indian film to be nominated for the oscars.[citation needed]
    • We have removed any films that use the Oscars as a rationale for inclusion. The reason is that a nomination (or win) is not the same as being cited as "the greatest ever". Reaching that conclusion would be original research.
  • Hum Aapke Hain Kaun (1994) is one of the biggest blockbusters in Indian cinema's history.[citation needed]
    • Likewise, we have removed all mention of finances because being a financial success is not a citation for being "the greatest ever". There is a separate page that lists top grossing films, so it should not be on this page as well.
  • Lagaan (2001) is an Oscar nominated periodic film starring Aamir Khan. It was number 14 on BBC Channel Four's "50 Films to See Before you Die" list, it was the only Indian movie to be listed.[1]
    • Being #14 on a list of films to see before you die is not an indication that it is the greatest ever. This is also true for the #1 entry. We do not include films that were the selection of a handful of reviewers. To be included here, a film needs a citation from a poll of reviewers or audience. This list is neither.
  • Pyaasa (1957) was in the Time magazine's " All-Time 100 Greatest Films" list, issued in 2005.[2]
    • Likewise, the Time magazine list was selected by the film reviewers that work for Time. It was not the result of a broad poll of reviewers. Perhaps we could add a new section on this page that specifically deals with these type of lists. I might not object. But for now we have not been including them. Aside from having the problem of just being the opinion of a single person or a few editors, it has the potential of turning this page into a spam magnet of non-notable websites that create a list so that they can add a link from this page.

Tamil Cinema

--☑ SamuelWantman 02:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions

I'm sure I'm mistaken since this article has been around for a significant amount of time but I don't understand how this article noteworthy or encyclopedic. While the citations are to notable sources, they're all opinions. This entire article is based on opinions. It's not based on box office numbers or any sort of coefficient to grade movies on factual numbers (like box office numbers or post theater sales). It seems to me that all of the references and citations should be placed in the article of their respective film.

Can someone help me understand why this article exsists? I'm new to Wiki and still trying to get a good handle on how everything works. I appreciate your time. OlYellerTalktome 18:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article is about opinions. It documents the opinions of polled groups of people. There is another article which documents box office numbers. Wikipedia is full of articles which document opinion and criticism. There is nothing wrong with that if the opinions are notable (not a blog posting) and come from verifiable, trusted sources. This is a topic that has been very widely written about. For more, look at the AFD discussions that are linked to the top of this talk page. --☑ SamuelWantman 07:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Widely written about topic, yes, but still not very encyclopedic. There are plenty of sites on the web were this type of info can be found, but an encyclopedia is supposed to present facts in an objective manner, not just spout the opinions of a few of its users. Remember the list of gruesome film deaths? It was removed b/c it had no real purpose to the concept of "encyclopedia" - it was just a list where people could write about their favr movie deaths. This one is fairly useless & it even has a title that's really just a bad euphemism ("greatest ______ ever"). Tommyt (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think literary criticism is unencyclopedic? Perhaps we should remove any citation to political analysis as well? While we are at it, let's remove any mention of public opinion polling, including politician approval polling and pre-election polling. All of these are opinion. Contrary to what you have said, an encyclopeida can present facts in an objective manner about notable polls. It happens all the time. There has been a great deal of effort over the years to remove postings by individuals who simply add their favorite movies -- which can be confirmed by scanning the history and reading the previous AFD discussions. If you find this article useless, don't read it, and work on something else. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While surely not encyclopedic i cannot understand why it is not editable while at the same time..."Please help improve this article by adding reliable references"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.38.141.211 (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Cinema

Why there's no reference to greek films?

Greece had the biggest film production per capita in the world and made many quite interesting movies such as

- the creations of Theodoros Angelopoulos (e.g. Topio stin omichli, Taxidi sta Kythira, O thiasos) (rated 8.1 in imdb) - To Xypolito Tagma of Greg Talas (rated 7.8 in imdb) - Alexis Zorbas of Mihalis Kakogiannis (rated 7.8 in imdb) - Loufa kai paralagi of Nikos Perakis (Rated 8.3 in imdb) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.229.94 (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Right One In

Shouldn't Let the Right One In be considered one of Sweden's best movies, as well as one of the greatest horror films of all time? It sure deserves it in my opinion. Come to think of it, more movies should probably be added to this article.Markunator (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots more movies should be added to this article, but only if you can find a citation from a poll of filmmakers, critics or audience members that name the film as being "the best". -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The movie critic Shawn Levy in Portland, Oregon declared it to be the best vampire movie he had seen in years. He's the resident film critic in The Oregonian newspaper. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1000's of lists to appreciate

Steven Jay Schneider has also a list of 1001 Movies you must see before you die. As everybody is saying here, it's up to individual bias, but I believe that you can narrow these lists down, based on awards won and general public opinion gathered from respected sources.

Obviously there are many ways to judge a movie, and it depends on the audience your targeting, for example a 14 year old girl is not going to be happy that the latest Hannah Montana didn't make the cut.

I guess these lists are not to be taken too serious, just a general guide taken from a collective consensus on what movies stood out from the rest. For me it introduced me to movies that I would never have watched. So I am grateful that they exist and it was a pleasure when adding these lists of movies to my own trailer website. As it says in Mr Schneider's book title, it would take a lifetime to even watch all of these movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robdido (talk • contribs) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes

Should we even count Rotten Tomatoes' guides here? This article is for movies that were voted to the greatest of a country/genre/all time by a wide variety of people. I love E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, but since Rotten Tomatoes' list is based off reviews and not votes, should it really be counted? Same for some of the others listed, like The Dark Knight. 207.255.127.59 (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list has included polls of critics as well as audience polls for many years. The question is whether Rotten Tomatoes' analysis of reviews constitutes a poll. I don't see a problem with this. If others do, I'd like to see the rationale. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the Beast

I have seen Beauty and the Beast frequently put on and then taken off the best of animated films list several times, and frankly I don't see why there is any doubt about it. This article states in the beginning that the films included in this article are based on the opinions of notable critics, people involved in the film industry, large polls of people ect. So what I don't understand is why the whole "only animated picture to receive a best picture nod" is discredited? Are the oscars not a poll of key people in the film industry? And if those key people have only nominated one animated film to be considered for best picture does that not imply that they see beauty and the beast as the only animated film qualified? Also in his review of the movie, Roger Ebert flat out says "it is as good as any disney movie made" and then states that it is as good as Snow White. And if one of the most notable critics of our time states that it is as good as snow white, which is currently on the list of greatest animated films, then shouldn't beauty and the beast also be on that list? In addition, Beauty and the Beast is one of only two animated films on AFI's greatest passions on the list, and is the highest one on the list, therefore it should at least be considered the greatest animated romance film of all time. And of course, if you just google beauty and the beast, tons of sites pop up, including filmsite.org, imdb, and many many other sites devoted to films all of which name Beauty and the Beast as one animated film "considered the greatest ever." So is there a particular reason why wikipedia refuses to acknowledge this? It seems like personal bias has gotten in the way here, which I suppose in inevitable when dealing with an article based on opinions that can be edited by anyone who wants.ozzie425er (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added beauty and the beast to the animation section since AFI chose it as the greatest animated romance film of all time. If there can be a greatest anime animated than it seems to reason there can also be a greatest animated romance. Beauty and the Beast certifiably fits that niche.-- ozzie425er (talk) 0:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been removing it, and I've removed it many times in the past for the same reasons. The only way this list is maintainable is if there are direct citations for being "the best" of the genre. The citation must be from a poll of critics or audience. After many discussions, all mentions of the Oscars were removed from being a justification for inclusion on this list. The reason is that nobody has come up with a citation that shows that winning Oscars means that the film is the best of a genre. In this case the film didn't even win. Being nominated proves nothing. Implications prove nothing. "Being as good as any Disney movie made" stated by one reviewer is not a citation for a poll that chose it as being "the best". "One of the best" is not a citation for being "the best". The AFI (as far as I know) did not poll people for their choice of "the best animated romance". Granted, it happens to be the highest animated film on a list of romance films. But that doesn't mean it was chosen to be the best "animated romance film". The edit history of this article has included the highest ranking nationality listings in polls, but has removed the highest ranking genres if the polling did not specifically ask about the genre. There is no question that the highest ranking film from a country was chosen as the "best film" from that country, but it is very questionable that the highest ranking film of a genre is the choice for the best film of the genre if that question was not part of the poll. For example, "Dr. Strangelove" might be very high on the list of ranked films, and might be the highest comedy on the list. But does that mean that it would be the film chosen to be the "best comedy"? Perhaps, but perhaps not. It might have been chosen for reasons that had nothing to do with its being a comedy. We have no way to know if the poll did not specifically ask about comedies. I have no particular opinion about "Beauty and the Beast", but I know that if this article does not maintain some strict standards for what belongs and what doesn't it will quickly fill up with every individual editor's choices for the best film. For that reason, we require citations that are directly on point, meaning that they clearly say that the film was chosen as the "best" of whatever genre in a poll that specifically asked about the genre. I will not remove a film that has such a citation, or where one is likely to be found. In several years, nobody has been able to produce such a citation for "Beauty". -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Platoon

Really? No one can find a citation for Platoon as a war movie? Easily the most iconic war movie

The Bicycle Thief It's Bicycle Thieves, plural. There is no ambiguity in the original title in Italian: Ladri is plural. Thanks for your attention to this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.199.117 (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WALL-E

Internet Movie Database has ranked WALL-E ahead of Up in its category for the best animated films and also ranked it multipe places higher than Up on its list of the best 250 movies. Shouldn't WALL-E alone get credit for its rank at Internet Movie Database (and Up's claim to the "best animated film" title focus entirely on its rank at Rotten Tomatoes)? 74.111.119.142 (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Sources

While polls are flawed in that they tend to favour recent films over ones that are a decade or older, and confuse 'popular' with 'best', they are still useful in identifying the favoured films of a generation. As long as it is a random mass poll and the year is given, it seems acceptable. Yet, sources that are relying on a medium's subscripted audience for voting seem questionable, as it is not a random polling and may not exclude multiple votes. Or a medium that aims at a targeted audience of the population rather than a whole seems unreliable to cite as well. If the audience of MTV votes a film like New Moon or Twilight as the greatest, it certainly does not represent the view of the total population, but more those under 20 years of age. After all, these are the 'greatest films ever', not the 'greatest films as voted by certain target demographics'. It is misleading, then, to include such sources that would reflect the opinions of certain age, social, geographical or other groups that show no evidence that they also represent the greater populace.173.24.113.253 (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda film

On the face of it, calling the Hitler-glorifying propaganda 'the best' propaganda ever seems a little offensive. Can someone add in the word "reviled" (which comes from the attached source) to clear things up please. If not, could a word such as 'revealing', 'effective' or 'shocking' be used instead of the 'best'. Furthermore, I don't believe the source is noteworthy enough to justify the film's presence in this list because the source's focus is on the death of the film maker.--82.152.165.144 (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You're not being objective. It's one of the best because of it's popularity (among nazi germany obviously) and influence, I think almost anyone can figure that out. It's about the art of it, not the moral objective of it.

Paths of Glory

This film may well belong on this list, but there is a discrepancy in the description that deserves clarification. It is cited from a list of "best films about WWII". The citation is accurate, but the film is about WWI. I think some small indication of the inaccuracy of this description should be included.

May I suggest:

  1. Paths of Glory (1957) is #1 on the Movie Review Query Engine's lists of both the best military movies,[81] and the best World War II movies (though is is actually about WWI).[82]

Rossgbaker2 (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar

Avatar is currently the second highest grossing film of all time and contains some of the most groundbreaking CGI to date.

Hi Having seen Avatar your section, I would like your section on science fiction to include this incredible film. Having seen it at an Imax Cinema in 3d it is the most incredible world i have ever had the privilege to have seen. Go see it and i'm sure you'll agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackleyboy (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.138.27 (talk) [reply]

I have not yet seen Avatar. I don't doubt it's popularity and ground breaking CGI, but until it has been included at the top of a list for the best movies by a reputable source, it could be some time before it appears in this article. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inclusion or exclusion

{{editsemiprotected}} Since I haven't seen Romania on the list I made one. It is a short one. I haven't seen many of them yet they have received prizes from diverse movie festivals. Please consider a revision and adding atleast one in the list.

restul e tacere 2009 gopos 3,Politist, adj.3 wins,pescuit sportiv 6 wins,patul conjugal 3 wins, occident 6 wins,marilena de la p7 (short movie),hartia va fi albastra 5 wins,Cum mi-am petrecut sfarsitul lumii 2 wins,Cea mai fericita fata din lume 3 wins,brigada diverse series (although the series revolves around the militia it is worth the view being in some sense a comedy),California Dreamin' - 9 wins,Binecuvântata fii, închisoare 3 wins,balanta 3 wins,A fost sau n-a fost? - 9 wins, ||mihai viteazu, dacii - before the cgi there was dacii, mihai viteazu and star wars. Rarely have I seen so many onset people. The task of filming the actions and perils with so many people on board was amazing considering when it was filmed||4 luni, 3 saptamâni si 2 zile - 21 wins,filantropica 4 wins, moartea domnului lazarescu 23 wins, amintiri din copilarie, Prin cenusa imperiului, padurea spanzuratilor and at last(Wish I had found this before manually taking all movies):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Romanian_films

 Not done Please provide a reference. Samwb123Please read 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paths of Glory

Is a World War I film, not a World War II film as stated in the article.

Could someone please correct this?

Joey Cleveland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.81.169.3 (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if the MRQE has Paths of Glory on the top of the list of "Best WW2" films, it is not a reliable source. I know nothing of MRQE, and only recently noticed it because of citations from this article. Considering this major gaffe on their part, I would advocate that we remove all the citations from MRQE in this article because it is unreliable. Unless I hear some good arguments in their behalf, that is what I will do. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without saying anything about MRQE-- is the existence of an error enough to make a source unreliable? If so, then the American Film Institute catalogue is unreliable... (That said, placing Paths of Glory on a WWII list is a pretty major boo-boo ;) Dekkappai (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a WWI movie is #1 on on a list of WWII movies might be an error, but I don't think that discredits MRQE as a valid source. All they are doing is reporting on the reviews of others, and if a movie is #1, it deserves to be on this list, regardless of whether anyone thinks it belongs or not... Fortdj33 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic

AFI's 10 Top 10: The 2008 poll consisted of the top ten films in ten different genres. Titanic ranked as the sixth best epic film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.168.32 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Few Recommendations

For Comedy: Dr. Strangelove


For War: Full Metal Jacket


For animation, the 3 highest grossing anime films of all time in Japan: Princess Mononoke, Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle


Just some recomendations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.144.152 (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


When did Kubrick learn to use the interwebs?

(Though I agree with his assertions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.121.82 (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since we're on the subject of Kubrick, The Shining and A Clockwork Orange for Horror? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.144.152 (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 121.74.41.21, 19 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello, I am from New Zealand and have a slight problem with your New Zealand part only having our crappiest saga being "lord of the rings trilogy". Many New Zealanders for one, hate this trilogy, but to my point. perhaps adding "out of the blue" based on a true story about the aramoana massacre in Dunedin, or another movie "the worlds fastest Indian" about Burt Monrow who went to America on his home made motorbike and beat land speed records, also based on a true story, or even "Once were warriors" that highlights the true nature of SOME of our maori families here in New Zealand. All of these movies were made right here in New Zealand and are considered by many to be far superior to the "Lord of the rings" please at least consider adding these to your list of New Zealands movies that are truly great and if you can find it in your heart, delete the homo hobbit loving "Lord of the rings trilogy"

121.74.41.21 (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of films considered to be the greatest ever. The LotR trilogy is widely considered a contender (as noted by the sources in the list) but is not claimed to be the greatest that New Zealand has produced. Rather, it's mentioned in that brief section since that is where it was filmed. This is not supposed to be a list of good films made in New Zealand, you may be more interested in Cinema of New Zealand. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Smnt, 26 April 2010

Spain

See also: Cinema of Spain

Smnt (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Remember to follow everying described in the {{editsemiprotected}} Template. Spitfire19 (Talk) 03:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request re Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - June 4th 2010

Hi, I realized that 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' is listed under China in the countries section. While it is a Chinese language film and has a multinational production team, it is officially listed as a Taiwanese production (see 73rd Oscars' Best Foreign Language Film category).

I suggest we either put it under a new Taiwan entry or simply remove it from China. 69.201.157.239 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of article

Now that this article has survived another nomination for deletion, I cleaned up a few sections to only include information about those films that have been voted #1 in a list of the greatest movies (separated by genre or country). Lately, people have been adding movies based on awards, or their rating at Rotten Tomatoes, which has diluted the list. There are other articles for those sources anyway, so if we limit the list to just those at the top of audience or critical polls, there should be no problem providing references to back them up. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Nbradshaw, 18 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Hi,

I'm the Web Editor for Sight & Sound magazine - you can email me at nick.bradshaw@bfi.org.uk

We've been tidying and collating our various polls coverage on our website, moving it all under the address 'sightandsound/polls', where previously our top ten films poll as discussed on this page stood freely at 'sightandsound/topten'.

We've left copies of the original pages where they were, since they're widely linked to, but would be grateful if you could amend addresses on this page from 'http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/…'

to 'http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/polls/topten/…'

Would that be possible?

Many thanks,

Nick

Sight & Sound Web Editor

Nbradshaw (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nbradshaw (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you obviously logged in. You will be able to edit on a semi-protected article eventually if you edit enough on here. Just be patient, you can't do it right away. But just remember, if it isn't constructice it can be reverted. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the link to the article in the meantime. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 92.32.32.97, 21 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Add 12 Angry Men to the list of greatest courtroom dramas. 92.32.32.97 (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Great movie, but you need to have a source which places it at the top of a list of movies. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Zezch, 27 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under 'India', a movie critic's name has been mis-spelt. His name is Khalid Mohammed, but his last name has been spelt 'Mehmood' in the article.

Zezch (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done He also has an article in Wikipedia (Khalid Mohamed), so I placed a link to it. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Scarface?

It's one of the most popular movies of all-time, obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk • contribs)

  1. ^ "Film buffs reveal 'must see' list". BBC News. 2006-07-23. Retrieved 17 December 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ All Time Hundered Best Films http://www.time.com/time/2005/100movies/the_complete_list.html\title= All Time Hundered Best Films. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ All Time Hundered Best Films http://www.time.com/time/2005/100movies/the_complete_list.html\title= All Time Hundered Best Films. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_films_voted_the_best&oldid=382835600"