or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Drafts & Lists › The 00s Draft: Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The 00s Draft: Discussion Thread - Page 33

post #1601 of 1634

It does matter, though.   If you have seen enough films within the given period to make a reasonably informed list, then the top 25 should be relatively even. I am trying to limit the degree of differentiation, so as to avoid the potential that two or three high votes could outpoint 20-30 lower votes.

post #1602 of 1634

What about doing a weighted ballot, like the Academy does, i.e. 1st choice gets 25 points, #2 - 24 points, #25 - 1 point, etc.  I'm not sure if that's exactly how it's done, but something like that, just to differentiate those films that get put into the #1 slot. 


Edited by yt - 12/16/11 at 5:35pm
post #1603 of 1634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

It does matter, though.   If you have seen enough films within the given period to make a reasonably informed list, then the top 25 should be relatively even. I am trying to limit the degree of differentiation, so as to avoid the potential that two or three high votes could outpoint 20-30 lower votes.

 

If you're trying to limit differentiation, why have a point system at all? The whole idea of a point-based system is that each individual can adequately give their idea of how good those 25 movies were in comparison to each other. If you think that all 25 are roughly equal, that's fine, you can rate them all between 8 and 12. However, if somebody happens to disagree with you, and thinks that there are maybe 5 REALLY great movies, and then everything else, than they have the option to use the whole 1 to 20 scale to express that opinion.

post #1604 of 1634

 

 

Quote:
If you're trying to limit differentiation, why have a point system at all?

 

If you're not trying to limit it, why have a maximum amount?  Why not just allow someone to give 226 points to their favorite movie, and one point to 24 others?

 

I was trying to find a middle ground.  I've been saying from the beginning I don't like the idea of a vote where a film supposedly in someone's top 25 of an entire decade could be given so little weight.  Otherwise we could just use the commonplace system yt was talking about; one used by voters in football polls and things like that.

 

The system I planned on using is a slightly modified version of one used by a couple different critics groups.  It got its origins in the Village Voice's end of year music survey.  In both cases, the minimum value was five points.

 

If nobody can agree, that's just the way it is sometimes. 

 

 

 

Quote:
However, if somebody happens to disagree with you, and thinks that there are maybe 5 REALLY great movies, and then everything else,

 

That person should probably see some more movies from the ten year period in question.

 

post #1605 of 1634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

If you're not trying to limit it, why have a maximum amount?  Why not just allow someone to give 226 points to their favorite movie, and one point to 24 others?

 

I think that's a perfectly reasonable system, and I would bet that if you didn't institute a limit, you would find almost everyone would fall in the 1-20 range (maybe 1-25).
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

I was trying to find a middle ground.  I've been saying from the beginning I don't like the idea of a vote where a film supposedly in someone's top 25 of an entire decade could be given so little weight.  Otherwise we could just use the commonplace system yt was talking about; one used by voters in football polls and things like that.

 

The problem with that system is that it assumes the difference between the 1st and 2nd movie is the same as the difference between the 2nd and 3rd, etc. It's simple, but it's really flawed if you want to figure out what people actually think.

 

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

If nobody can agree, that's just the way it is sometimes. 

 

 

Yeah, I agree. I'm not trying to be contentious. It's just that I'm a statistician, and numbers and distributions matter to me, so I get fixated on little things like this.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

That person should probably see some more movies from the ten year period in question.

 


Don't be ridiculous. You think it's impossible, even implausible, that someone could watch the majority of "great" films from a decade and have a small handful that are both undeniably great achievements and also happen to speak to that person on a deeper level that separates them from the next tier of films? I'm guessing that if you were to make a list of your favorite films of all time, maybe 2-3 of them would come from this decade (maybe more, maybe less, I don't know you). Aren't those the films that separate themselves to you, that would be considered REALLY great? The idea that everyone who has "seen enough movies" should have 25 films over a 10 year span that they feel are all more-or-less equal is ludicrous.

post #1606 of 1634
Thread Starter 

Bailey, I think you should just take a plan that works and say that's that. No need to overthink this; it's a bit of a lark, not the BCS.

post #1607 of 1634
Quote:
I think that's a perfectly reasonable system, and I would bet that if you didn't institute a limit, you would find almost everyone would fall in the 1-20 range (maybe 1-25).

 

 
Maybe if you did it with a big sample size, it would all even out.  But if you have only a couple dozen people participating, there's the potential for one or two people to really affect the outcome in a way not necessarily reflective of the whole.
 
Say 24 out of 25 voters ranked Ghost World anywhere from 15th to 25th, and gave it an average of 9 points each.  Then one person decided to give Batman Begins 226 points.  Guess which one wins in your system?  Not the one truly reflective of the preferences of the group.
 

 

Quote:
Don't be ridiculous. You think it's impossible, even implausible, that someone could watch the majority of "great" films from a decade and have a small handful that are both undeniably great achievements and also happen to speak to that person on a deeper level that separates them from the next tier of films?

 

 
To the degree we're potentially talking about?  226 to 1?  Yes.
 

 

Quote:
The idea that everyone who has "seen enough movies" should have 25 films over a 10 year span that they feel are all more-or-less equal is ludicrous.

 

 
Since when is 25 and 5 even close equal?  We're just talking about limiting the discrepancy.

 


By the way, are you a Libertarian, by any chance?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

No need to overthink this; it's a bit of a lark, not the BCS.


 

Well thank Christ for that.  I wouldn't want some irate guy from from Stillwater, Oklahoma to open fire on me over this shit.

post #1608 of 1634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

 

 
Maybe if you did it with a big sample size, it would all even out.  But if you have only a couple dozen people participating, there's the potential for one or two people to really affect the outcome in a way not necessarily reflective of the whole.
 
Say 24 out of 25 voters ranked Ghost World anywhere from 15th to 25th, and gave it an average of 9 points each.  Then one person decided to give Batman Begins 226 points.  Guess which one wins in your system?  Not the one truly reflective of the preferences of the group.
 

 

 

You're arguing absurdities, which I can do all day if you want to. Sure, someone could give Batman Begins 226 points, but someone could also compose a list giving 25s to Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy movies. When you're dealing with a group of a dozen, weird shit can happen. Realistically, however, it's unlikely that anyone on these boards would do such a thing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

 

To the degree we're potentially talking about?  226 to 1?  Yes.
 

 

I never suggested 226 to 1. You brought it up, and I merely pointed out that it would, in all likelihood, amount to the exact same thing as the 1 to 20 system I proposed.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

 

Quote:

The idea that everyone who has "seen enough movies" should have 25 films over a 10 year span that they feel are all more-or-less equal is ludicrous.  

Since when is 25 and 5 even close equal?  We're just talking about limiting the discrepancy.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

If you have seen enough films within the given period to make a reasonably informed list, then the top 25 should be relatively even.

 

You said it, not me. I was simply responding to your statement.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

By the way, are you a Libertarian, by any chance?

 


Nope, not by any chance.

post #1609 of 1634
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomethingClever View Post

 

You're arguing absurdities, which I can do all day if you want to. Sure, someone could give Batman Begins 226 points, but someone could also compose a list giving 25s to Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy movies. When you're dealing with a group of a dozen, weird shit can happen. Realistically, however, it's unlikely that anyone on these boards would do such a thing.

 


 

First off, in trying to come up with a system, I wanted to eliminate the possibility that might happen, not because I thought someone would do it here, but because it seemed reasonable to me that it was indicative of a flaw in the system. (Then again, someone did draft Batman Begins fifth last time around, so who knows?)

 

What is the problem with putting limits, just in case?  You say someone could give Adam Sandler movies 25s, but that wouldn't necessarily skew the results towards those movies.  However, the limits put in place might have prevented that voter from doing just that.  Is your objection to the idea of having these limits at all?  Or is your objection to the values I placed on them?  I believe you said 20 and 1 would be better, because that gives basically equal room to play on either side of the average.  But my problem with that is simply the floor seems too low.  I just don't think you should be able to cast a vote for a film that is essentially meaningless.  Earlier you said there will be a whole mess of fives at the back end of some of these lists.  That seems better to me than a whole mess of ones.  At least a few five point votes could stand a better chance of making a difference.

 

The thing is, we could do the same thing with a top five, or a top ten, and still come up with the 25 highest point scorers.  The reason I decided everyone should make a top 25 is because I figured there would be at least 25 films each we all felt passionate enough about to assign some kind of value to, relative to the other films.  I honestly didn't figure there would be anybody using arguments like "5 really great movies, and then everything else", or that someone here would only "want to give one or two movies a really good score."

 

Metacritic listed their top films of the decade by simply counting the number of times each film was mentioned on a list.  So long as it was on a critic's list, they gave no extra weight, nor really paid any attention to where it was ranked.  I believe they made note of the times a film was picked first, but I think even then that was used only as a tiebreaker, if at all.  Point is, there's more than one way to do this.  I was just suggesting an idea that I'd seen used successfully, albeit in a slightly different way, elsewhere.  Seemed to make sense to me.

post #1610 of 1634

Weren't we talking about doing an Oscar draft upthread awhile back?  Seems like that would be a nice distraction in Feb. from all the mundane talk about THIS year's Oscars.   Or did we decide on a Director's Draft?   I can't remember.  

post #1611 of 1634

Either one, but I think an Oscars draft would be pretty challenging since so many of the best movies historically have been snubbed!

post #1612 of 1634
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

Either one, but I think an Oscars draft would be pretty challenging since so many of the best movies historically have been snubbed!



And this is why it would be an awesome challenge. Do we do Oscar winners or would nominated count?

post #1613 of 1634

Doing only winners would make it ever so much more fun. We all get to laugh at the poor bastard who ends up with Crash.

post #1614 of 1634

Do we just do Best Picture winners or any Oscar winning film?  If limit it to BP winners, we can only have 16 drafters tops with a 5 round draft.

post #1615 of 1634

Maybe just BP nominees?

post #1616 of 1634

I think it'd be really cool to just do every single film that won any kind of Oscar. That'd be a wide open, extremely varied field.

 

Plus, from what I understand of sports drafts (note: I do not understand much about sports drafts), part of the fun is the fact that some people will invariably end up with dead weight, and there's a ton of that to be had in that selection. It'd be way more interesting to see what people go for when they have to try to sort out the "slightly less worse" from the worst than when they are just scrambling for the best.

post #1617 of 1634

Why don't we just do it by days:

 

Day 1:  Best Picture Winners

Day 2:  Best Actor winners

Day 3:  Best Actress winners

Day 4:  Best S Actor winners

Day 5:  Best S Actress winners

 

 

Or maybe sub Supporting Actors/Actresses for Best Director and Best Score or something.   

post #1618 of 1634

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratty View Post

Why don't we just do it by days:

 

Day 1:  Best Picture Winners

Day 2:  Best Actor winners

Day 3:  Best Actress winners

Day 4:  Best S Actor winners

Day 5:  Best S Actress winners

 

 

What about not assigning specific days?  Think of it like a roster you need to fill - you need to draft one of each, but it doesn't matter when you do it.

post #1619 of 1634
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop View Post

Quote:

 

What about not assigning specific days?  Think of it like a roster you need to fill - you need to draft one of each, but it doesn't matter when you do it.



I like that way of approaching it.  Someone might have a director they really want on Day One more than a particular movie.  It'll force a lot more strategizing.  And it'll be fun to see what category ends up being the kicker.

post #1620 of 1634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post



And it'll be fun to see what category ends up being the kicker.


Costume design!

 

post #1621 of 1634
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop View Post

Quote:

 

What about not assigning specific days?  Think of it like a roster you need to fill - you need to draft one of each, but it doesn't matter when you do it.

 

That would be even better.  Do you go after Coppola first or The Godfather as a whole?  I like that.   

post #1622 of 1634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteboy Jones View Post

I think it'd be really cool to just do every single film that won any kind of Oscar. That'd be a wide open, extremely varied field.

 

Plus, from what I understand of sports drafts (note: I do not understand much about sports drafts), part of the fun is the fact that some people will invariably end up with dead weight, and there's a ton of that to be had in that selection. It'd be way more interesting to see what people go for when they have to try to sort out the "slightly less worse" from the worst than when they are just scrambling for the best.


With 80+ years of awards, you'd need a lot of people participating before there would be any kind of real "dead weight" popping up. As flawed as they are, even among the Best Picture winners there has to be at least 20+ no dispute classics. The '70s doesn't really have a bum Best Picture winner in the lot, although yes Rocky was a reach.
 

 

post #1623 of 1634
Thread Starter 

Yeah, but who wants to draft Cimarron, or the Zeigfeld Follies? I think it should be all Best Picture Nominees. Or that five category version, that sounded tricky.

post #1624 of 1634

Yeah, I like the five category version, with no specific day on which to draft your pick for a particular category.  It'd be interesting to see where people place the value on individual films vs. directors vs. actors.  Do you take The Godfather in Round 1, or grab Coppola and get his entire filmography by proxy?

post #1625 of 1634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

Yeah, I like the five category version, with no specific day on which to draft your pick for a particular category.  It'd be interesting to see where people place the value on individual films vs. directors vs. actors.  Do you take The Godfather in Round 1, or grab Coppola and get his entire filmography by proxy?


So, grabbing multi-nominated directors take them entirely off the table?  Harsh, but an interesting challenge.  So if I choose Spielberg for SCHINDLER'S LIST, no one could take him for RAIDERS, correct?

 

Oh, and this should definitely be winners only.  

 

post #1626 of 1634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

Yeah, I like the five category version, with no specific day on which to draft your pick for a particular category.  It'd be interesting to see where people place the value on individual films vs. directors vs. actors.  Do you take The Godfather in Round 1, or grab Coppola and get his entire filmography by proxy?



Hear him, hear him!

 

As a one time participant, I have little say, but is the idea I endorse.

 

ETA: Additionally, I like NOT picking a best picture, but once we are all finished, a bonus round where we pick Best Screenplay or Adapted for our drafted team of director/actors/actress/support/score to perform.

 

For example: If I select Scorsese/Forest Whitaker/Helen Hunt/Kathy Bates/Howard Shore, I then bonus round my screenplay pick for that group to act out: The Apartment. Kathy Bates is the boss, Helen Hunt seduces poor Whitaker, but after he attempts suicide, Hunt takes care of him.

 

Not a well thought out example, but an idea.

post #1627 of 1634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post


So, grabbing multi-nominated directors take them entirely off the table?  Harsh, but an interesting challenge.  So if I choose Spielberg for SCHINDLER'S LIST, no one could take him for RAIDERS, correct?

 

Oh, and this should definitely be winners only.  

 



Yes on both counts.  Sort of like the old comic book draft, where if I took the Hal Jordan Green Lantern, all other Lanterns were off the table.

post #1628 of 1634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post



Yes on both counts.  Sort of like the old comic book draft, where if I took the Hal Jordan Green Lantern, all other Lanterns were off the table.


Same with actors then?  Grab Jack Nicholson once and cover CUCKOO, TERMS and AS GOOD AS IT GETS in one fell?

 

post #1629 of 1634

I think so.  There's still enough Oscar winners to leave plenty of choices out there.

post #1630 of 1634
Thread Starter 

Might be fun if this years oscars happened on the Sunday between week 1 and 2 of the draft.

post #1631 of 1634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

Might be fun if this years oscars happened on the Sunday between week 1 and 2 of the draft.



The only problem with that is that the week prior is a holiday week (President's Day).  I'd vote for Feb 6 thru Feb 17.  

post #1632 of 1634

Count me in. Though I'm still not quite clear on the concept. Do we draft the movie? The person? The person and the movie together? Help me out here. And if we're going to divide it into categories. Then, my suggestion is:

 

Best Supporting Actor/Actress

Best Actor/Actress

Best Screenplay (Adapted or original)

Best Director

Best Picture

 

That's a solid 5 days right there and makes things a bit tighter and forces you to really consider your choices.

post #1633 of 1634

Who is going to manage the draft?

post #1634 of 1634

I'd normally love to manage it, except for that my cubicle at work is being relocated to another building, so I'm not sure of the "goof-off" wiggle room yet!    I should know in a couple of weeks.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Drafts & Lists
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Drafts & Lists › The 00s Draft: Discussion Thread