As I was putting together my list, I started thinking, you know, Primary and Crisis could almost be considered part of the same series. Same with all of Michael Moore's films. And The War Room and A Perfect Candidate. And The Hamster Factor and Lost in La Mancha. And Grass and Chang. And all of Flaherty's films.
This seems like a stretch.
Oh yeah, definitely. I was more just saying, I was surprised how interconnected the titles on my list seemed to be, in terms of the same group of filmmakers often appearing over and over again and also the same subject matter (homelessless, political campaigning, soldiers, concerts, genocide).
The other issue is that combining films into series could hurt those films' placement on the final list (or cost them a spot all together).
The opposite seems more likely to me. Considering the entire Up Series as a single title avoids vote splitting. Or am I confused about how the phase two fancy math works?
In phase two, everyone's going to rate all the shortlisted films that they've seen (and remember) on a scale of 1-10. The films will then be ranked by average score (which will by weighted by the number of votes). So vote-splitting shouldn't really be an issue. I mean, I can't imagine half of us thinka
35 Up is mediocre while
42 Up is sublime, while the other half thinks the opposite.
The main advantage of considering the films a single entity is that it prevents the individual films in the series from hogging seven different spots on our final Top 100. I don't think films with just two parts (
Grey Gardens,
The Beaches of Agnes,
Paradise Lost, etc.) need that same consideration.
pixote