MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Charting The Top Tens

We are in the early stages of compiling our fifth annual list of critics’ Top 10 lists – only 33 lists in – and I thought I would point out an interesting awards element that seems to becoming narrower over the years.
Our first list, 2003, ended up with Oscar’s Best Picture nominees in slots 1-3, 8, and 19 (Seabiscuit). In 2004, it was 1, 3, 4, 13 (Finding Neverland), and 16 (Ray).
But in 2005 and 2006, all of the BP nominees came from the Top 8 films.
Does this mean that campaigning is giving way to quality? Does it mean that critics are more susceptible to having their heads turned by the awards season?
And does it mean that the Top 8 will contain all 5 nominees this year?
I just noticed that we posted the first chart with the hierarchy based on # of votes and not points… so here is the Top 18 by points…
top ten 1216.jpg

Be Sociable, Share!

7 Responses to “Charting The Top Tens”

  1. ZacharyTF says:

    How many points are you assigning to each placement?
    If I use the 10 points for #1, 9 points for #2 and so on, I get 79 points for Zodiac.

  2. Melquiades says:

    I just did the same and came up with 82, which is what the chart says.

  3. It means that even with 82 points, Zodiac can’t get one lousy mention in any awards from any cities and that movies like Ratatouille are susceptible to being ousted from lists by November/December titles.

  4. TMJ says:

    Remember, people. Bucket List is better than Zodiac. NBR says its true!

  5. ZacharyTF says:

    Somehow, even with checking the list twice, I was getting 79 points yesterday. Just now, after a third time, I get 82 points. I am SMART. SMRT! šŸ™‚

  6. movieman says:

    Hey, Dave- You’ve got 34 now if you include the best/worst lists I sent you yesterday!

  7. LexG says:

    Anyone catch Turan’s typically Medvedian quip in his top 10 list the other day, re: No Country?
    That something as violent as NCFOM shouldn’t be in his top 10 list, but the craftsmanship earned it a spot?
    Was it even THAT violent?
    Shouldn’t that boring old fossil be immune to onscreen violence by now, anyway? Dude only sees 300 movies a year.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” ā€” some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it ā€” I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury ā€” he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā€” and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā€” I was with her at that moment ā€” she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy namedā€”” “Yeah, sure ā€” you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that Iā€™m on the phone with you now, after all thatā€™s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didnā€™t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereā€™s not a case of that. He wasnā€™t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā€” if that were what the accusation involved ā€” the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. Iā€™m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, ā€œYou know, itā€™s not this, itā€™s thatā€? Because ā€” let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatā€™s what it lacked. Thatā€™s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon