RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 26, 2008 23:40:32 GMT
Okay, so The Host is out.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 28, 2008 15:25:32 GMT
Well, our deadline for nominations last year was March 25th. We should make all films with wide theatrical releases between 25th March, 2007 to (say) March 9th, 2008 eligible. ? We'd have to check on release dates on IMDb. Would Cloverfield be eligible? I like this new approach. Makes more sense to me. (Even if Cloverfield isn't eligible; I probs won't vote for it in much anyway.)
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 28, 2008 15:26:44 GMT
Did I just do an abbrev, there?
hang me now.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 29, 2008 16:38:30 GMT
Well, our deadline for nominations last year was March 25th. We should make all films with wide theatrical releases between 25th March, 2007 to (say) March 9th, 2008 eligible. ? Wide theatrical releases where? Anywhere? And what about films that never received wide releases? And doesn't this defeat the purpose of holding these awards in March? We might as well have done it in January.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 29, 2008 19:03:45 GMT
the idea should be to judge films from Jan 1 2007 to Dec 31 2007. Voting in March gives a 2 month buffer to see more films from within the timeframe. If movies until Mar 9 are allowed we shouldnt vote until May, which I am against.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Feb 29, 2008 19:11:55 GMT
I think I agree with that jrod. We can go by IMDB dates and the calendar year to decide the eligible films. For everyone => Which films (that you are interested in) made in last calendar year have not been released world-wide?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 29, 2008 22:03:09 GMT
Which films (that you are interested in) made in last calendar year have not been released world-wide? By "made in" you mean "first publicly screened in", which is the criterion IMDb uses for almost every film it lists (exceptions are made for some high profile unreleased films like The Other Side of the Wind). And when you say "released worldwide", do you mean those that have had some kind of international release? Ie: a commercial release (even if only a single arthouse programming) in more than one country? Because a film getting screened for a week in France, Denmark and Luxembourg doesn't do me much good. I mean, Tropical Malady (2004) only got 'released' (by which I mean a once-off noon-time screening in the IFI) here in October 2007. The Isle (2000) played as part of a fairly wide (UK & Ireland) Tartan Asia Extreme programme in UGC in August 2004. Four years after its premiere. I like the idea of admitting some IMDb 2006 titles as eligible for these awards, but it's tricky and deserves more debate than it's getting.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 29, 2008 23:53:32 GMT
It's probably easier to play it by ear, individually for each film we wish to nominate. Which means we'll have to put titles forth before our final nominations, to see if everyone else agrees on them. A collective committee, so to speak?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 1, 2008 0:06:56 GMT
But this does make sense: the idea should be to judge films from Jan 1 2007 to Dec 31 2007. Voting in March gives a 2 month buffer to see more films from within the timeframe.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 1, 2008 0:08:45 GMT
Oh, and I'm reluctant to vote for You, the Living, if wetdog and I are the only ones to have seen it. If we're changing the rules of voting for years henceforth, it should be eligible by this time next year; and I'd hate to cancel it out by nominating it in a few weeks. That's what basically happened with Climates last year.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 1, 2008 0:39:39 GMT
It's probably easier to play it by ear, individually for each film we wish to nominate. Which means we'll have to put titles forth before our final nominations, to see if everyone else agrees on them. A collective committee, so to speak? ...that's what I was doing. I see the following as eligible: Lifted Nightmare Detective Curse of the Golden Flower I Don't Want to Sleep Alone Old Joy Still Life Lights in the Dusk Private Fears in Public Places Syndromes and a Century Away from Her Once Hana Sisters The Abandoned Manufactured Landscapes Peter and the Wolf My LoveQuestion marks still hang over: Climates Did you nominate it? And if not, does the fact that you'd seen it prior make it ineligible? Black Book Did Pherdy nominate it? Paris, je t'aime Time 300 The Boss of It All Fast Food Nation Flanders The Good GermanI'd seen them; didn't nominate them.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 1, 2008 0:42:14 GMT
Oh, and I'm reluctant to vote for You, the Living, if wetdog and I are the only ones to have seen it. If we're changing the rules of voting for years henceforth, it should be eligible by this time next year; and I'd hate to cancel it out by nominating it in a few weeks. That's what basically happened with Climates last year. That's the question of whether having merely seen a film makes it ineligible. Can you abstain from voting, hope no one else votes for it, and keep it in reserve for next year?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 1, 2008 0:46:50 GMT
Pherdy nominated Black Book for one category; Best Sound Design.
I've just checked my log book (knew it would come in handy some day!), and I didn't see Climates until the 31st March last year. That was the day before our nominations deadline.
Wetdog, you nominated 300 for Best Makeup last year. (Queer!)
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 1, 2008 0:52:05 GMT
That's the question of whether having merely seen a film makes it ineligible. It depends on the manner in which you saw it, and whether or not everyone else was able to see it too. Me and you have seen You, the Living via eMule, but I wouldn't want to insist on everyone else downloading it; that comes down to personal ethics. If it were on wide theatrical release across the UK and the US? That's another question altogether. Like I said, I saw Climates last year on the 31st March; it was one of only two screenings that weekend, and didn't come back. According to IMDb, it got a limited release in the US in October 2006, and appeared at the Wisconsin Film Festival in April last year, and that's it; given the context, I don't think that makes it all that widely available (and thus eligible)). Let's remind ourselves that we're quite a small community of members, here. If the majority of voters have seen a film, we should probably take it to mean it's widely available enough for at least those regular enough to be voting to see (and thus eligible). Too bad on the ones who have to wait for a release date (for instance, if TWBB gets pushed back again for you, you'd have to download it, or just leave it for the retrospective award next year).
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 1, 2008 1:34:17 GMT
How many more of our members do you think are likely to have seen You, the Living by this time next year?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 1, 2008 1:35:11 GMT
And how many of them would even like it? I don't know. Was that a rhetorical question? If so, I missed the point you were making with it.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 1, 2008 1:39:56 GMT
I don't see the point in squirreling away titles in the--vain, probably--hopes that they'll have a better chance of a strong performance next year.
Isn't that a political move in itself?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 1, 2008 1:43:36 GMT
Ah, fair enough; I agree.
So if You, the Living is now ineligible for next year because we've seen it before this year's nominations, that should probably make this list ineligible for this year:
Climates Black Book Paris, je t'aime Time 300 The Boss of It All Fast Food Nation Flanders The Good German
I'm still undecided on Climates, though.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 1, 2008 1:56:58 GMT
I'm fine with those being ineligible.
March 31st was after last year's nominations, so Climates should be eligible unless it received nominations from others, shouldn't it?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 1, 2008 2:22:40 GMT
March 31st was after last year's nominations, so Climates should be eligible unless it received nominations from others, shouldn't it? Oh yeah, I'm getting my numbers completely messed up. Yeah: nobody saw it before last year's nominations deadline. It's eligible.
|
|