Page 51 of 54

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 4:32 am
by Fergenaprido
There might be argument for it's inclusion on the BFI list, since it explicitly lists the whole series (though I get an invalid security certificate when I try to view the specific entry in the poll), but the poll is from 2014... I don't think any films made after that date should be included. Ebert died in 2013, and by the same token I don't think any films made that should be in his list, since he clearly didn't review them (it's also not on the site yet, unlike all the other Up entries, so in this case we would be deviating from the source).

In general, I'm against the idea of a film becoming official just by virtue of being released. I agree that both lists are for the Up Series in their entirety, but I would say they are of the Up series as they existed at that point in time, and nothing should be automatically included.

Incidentally, it looks like the results of the poll have changed since the list was published, because the icm list is no longer in the same order as the list on the BFI site.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 4:59 am
by Ebbywebby
Oh, wow! Didn't know "63 Up" was out!!

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 5:21 am
by xianjiro
Ebbywebby wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 4:59 am
Oh, wow! Didn't know "63 Up" was out!!
best I can tell, only on UK TV, right? IMDb reports it premiered on the 4th.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 5:27 am
by PeacefulAnarchy
Fergenaprido wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 4:32 am
There might be argument for it's inclusion on the BFI list, since it explicitly lists the whole series (though I get an invalid security certificate when I try to view the specific entry in the poll), but the poll is from 2014... I don't think any films made after that date should be included.

Incidentally, it looks like the results of the poll have changed since the list was published, because the icm list is no longer in the same order as the list on the BFI site.
What BFI list?

Edit: if you mean the S&S poll the page only lists the filmmakers poll results. The full list is this unreadable mess of a webpage. https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-sound-maga ... 2b6a21d217

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 5:29 am
by Ebbywebby
xianjiro wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 5:21 am
Ebbywebby wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 4:59 am
Oh, wow! Didn't know "63 Up" was out!!
best I can tell, only on UK TV, right? IMDb reports it premiered on the 4th.


And the other two parts are linked on the same page!

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 5:35 am
by xianjiro
Ebbywebby wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 5:29 am
xianjiro wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 5:21 am
Ebbywebby wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 4:59 am
Oh, wow! Didn't know "63 Up" was out!!
best I can tell, only on UK TV, right? IMDb reports it premiered on the 4th.


And the other two parts are linked on the same page!
thanks! though I'm inclined to wait for the disc - and since I've seen the rest of the series (started even before coming to iCM) I'll watch even if it isn't an official check.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 5:38 am
by Ebbywebby
You'll watch something "even if isn't an official check"? Jeez.

I feel like I should watch those YouTube links fast, because they'll probably get pulled.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 9:15 am
by albajos
No. Roger Ebert is dead.

As you have said so many times before. We follow the source

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 9:15 am
by xianjiro
Ebbywebby wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 5:38 am
You'll watch something "even if isn't an official check"? Jeez.

I feel like I should watch those YouTube links fast, because they'll probably get pulled.
my exact thought on your second comment and honestly, I hate the idea of starting and having them vanish before I finish.

as for your first thought, there was a little tongue in my cheek but I'm also ambivalent to it's official status per earlier discussion. I tend to think including something that didn't exist (though anticipated) in a dead guy's list just doesn't make sense unless somewhere he said, "I hope Apted or his acolytes keep this series going until the last participant meets with St Peter for the Final Interview. So I include every film in the series, even those not yet made, in my recommendation."

Otherwise, if it's a list that gets updated periodically, then the compiler of the list can make the decision to include or not. If it's a static list, then again, unless someone finds "all titles in the series including those not yet made", we probably shouldn't be making decisions for them.

Can't remember without doing a bit of research if I've included every installment in either my favorites or on any applicable ballots. I wasn't that thrilled with the first but that's largely because the production values were "TV news feature", but granted it still has value in the context of the series. As for 56 Up, it didn't grab me quite the way the 40s did so I'm not sure how eager I'd be to vote it up as well. I'd probably feel compelled to rewatch it before including it on any list of my own.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 10:31 am
by Ebbywebby
ALREADY GONE!!!!!!! :( But I did manage to see the first two-thirds. Very affecting, as ever.

I actually tried to pre-emptively download the three segments with a browser extension I have. But maybe something about them having commercial breaks stopped the download process? It seemed like about 20 minutes would load, and then it just stopped. I tried three times.

I think the second episode was pulled WHILE I WAS WATCHING IT. Except my browser had already loaded/buffered the page, so I was unaffected. But then I went onto part 3 and...nothing.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 11:45 am
by Fergenaprido
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 5:27 am
Fergenaprido wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 4:32 am
There might be argument for it's inclusion on the BFI list, since it explicitly lists the whole series (though I get an invalid security certificate when I try to view the specific entry in the poll), but the poll is from 2014... I don't think any films made after that date should be included.

Incidentally, it looks like the results of the poll have changed since the list was published, because the icm list is no longer in the same order as the list on the BFI site.
What BFI list?

Edit: if you mean the S&S poll the page only lists the filmmakers poll results. The full list is this unreadable mess of a webpage. https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-sound-maga ... 2b6a21d217
Yes. I was referring to the link in the source for the list https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-sound-maga ... atest-docs which lists the top 50 in order.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 4:39 pm
by beasterne
albajos wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 9:15 am
No. Roger Ebert is dead.

As you have said so many times before. We follow the source
I'm going to respectfully disagree. Roger Ebert placed the Up Series on his list of Great Movies (the source for our list) in 1998: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/grea ... aries-1985. 42 Up was the most recently released film in the series at that time. We subsequently added 49 Up and 56 Up to the official list, even though he never wrote Great Movie write-ups for these films--it was understood that, as part of the Up Series, the next installments in the series should also be included along with the films that were released prior to Ebert's write-up.

And, here is the closing of his review of 42 Up, from 2000(https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/42-up-2000): "Will they all live to 49? Will the series continue until none are alive? This series should be sealed in a time capsule. It is on my list of the 10 greatest films of all time, and is a noble use of the medium." Ebert seems to clearly indicate that the series as a whole belongs on his list of Great Movies, and that any future releases are just a continuation and culmination of what has come before.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 4:53 pm
by 72allinncallme
^ +1

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 5:07 pm
by Fergenaprido
beasterne wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 4:39 pm
albajos wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 9:15 am
No. Roger Ebert is dead.

As you have said so many times before. We follow the source
I'm going to respectfully disagree. Roger Ebert placed the Up Series on his list of Great Movies (the source for our list) in 1998: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/grea ... aries-1985. 42 Up was the most recently released film in the series at that time. We subsequently added 49 Up and 56 Up to the official list, even though he never wrote Great Movie write-ups for these films--it was understood that, as part of the Up Series, the next installments in the series should also be included along with the films that were released prior to Ebert's write-up.

And, here is the closing of his review of 42 Up, from 2000(https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/42-up-2000): "Will they all live to 49? Will the series continue until none are alive? This series should be sealed in a time capsule. It is on my list of the 10 greatest films of all time, and is a noble use of the medium." Ebert seems to clearly indicate that the series as a whole belongs on his list of Great Movies, and that any future releases are just a continuation and culmination of what has come before.
But there are reviews of 49 Up and 56 Up. So even if those films were not there with the first Great Movies list went up, I'm under the impression that they were added later.
https://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/s ... -for-apted
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/49-up-2006
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/56-up-2013

Both entries were given 4 stars by Ebert himself, which is the same rating he gave the whole series when he included it in the original list, so to me it still seems like they belong in the list, as later additions. 63 Up can get no such endorsement from Ebert from beyond the grave, however.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 5:28 pm
by xianjiro
beasterne wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 4:39 pm
albajos wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 9:15 am
No. Roger Ebert is dead.

As you have said so many times before. We follow the source
I'm going to respectfully disagree. Roger Ebert placed the Up Series on his list of Great Movies (the source for our list) in 1998: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/grea ... aries-1985. 42 Up was the most recently released film in the series at that time. We subsequently added 49 Up and 56 Up to the official list, even though he never wrote Great Movie write-ups for these films--it was understood that, as part of the Up Series, the next installments in the series should also be included along with the films that were released prior to Ebert's write-up.

And, here is the closing of his review of 42 Up, from 2000(https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/42-up-2000): "Will they all live to 49? Will the series continue until none are alive? This series should be sealed in a time capsule. It is on my list of the 10 greatest films of all time, and is a noble use of the medium." Ebert seems to clearly indicate that the series as a whole belongs on his list of Great Movies, and that any future releases are just a continuation and culmination of what has come before.
Good quote catch. Thanks! I'd say this is indication of anticipation of future releases.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 5:33 pm
by albajos
beasterne wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 4:39 pm
albajos wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 9:15 am
No. Roger Ebert is dead.

As you have said so many times before. We follow the source
I'm going to respectfully disagree. Roger Ebert placed the Up Series on his list of Great Movies (the source for our list) in 1998: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/grea ... aries-1985. 42 Up was the most recently released film in the series at that time. We subsequently added 49 Up and 56 Up to the official list, even though he never wrote Great Movie write-ups for these films--it was understood that, as part of the Up Series, the next installments in the series should also be included along with the films that were released prior to Ebert's write-up.

And, here is the closing of his review of 42 Up, from 2000(https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/42-up-2000): "Will they all live to 49? Will the series continue until none are alive? This series should be sealed in a time capsule. It is on my list of the 10 greatest films of all time, and is a noble use of the medium." Ebert seems to clearly indicate that the series as a whole belongs on his list of Great Movies, and that any future releases are just a continuation and culmination of what has come before.
Good thing he didn't add the concept of MCU to his list of movies then, or else we will be adding movies long after we all are dead.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 6:46 pm
by beasterne
Fergenaprido wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 5:07 pm
beasterne wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 4:39 pm
albajos wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 9:15 am
No. Roger Ebert is dead.

As you have said so many times before. We follow the source
I'm going to respectfully disagree. Roger Ebert placed the Up Series on his list of Great Movies (the source for our list) in 1998: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/grea ... aries-1985. 42 Up was the most recently released film in the series at that time. We subsequently added 49 Up and 56 Up to the official list, even though he never wrote Great Movie write-ups for these films--it was understood that, as part of the Up Series, the next installments in the series should also be included along with the films that were released prior to Ebert's write-up.

And, here is the closing of his review of 42 Up, from 2000(https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/42-up-2000): "Will they all live to 49? Will the series continue until none are alive? This series should be sealed in a time capsule. It is on my list of the 10 greatest films of all time, and is a noble use of the medium." Ebert seems to clearly indicate that the series as a whole belongs on his list of Great Movies, and that any future releases are just a continuation and culmination of what has come before.
But there are reviews of 49 Up and 56 Up. So even if those films were not there with the first Great Movies list went up, I'm under the impression that they were added later.
https://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/s ... -for-apted
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/49-up-2006
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/56-up-2013

Both entries were given 4 stars by Ebert himself, which is the same rating he gave the whole series when he included it in the original list, so to me it still seems like they belong in the list, as later additions. 63 Up can get no such endorsement from Ebert from beyond the grave, however.
Yes, he did give them 4 star ratings, but this isn't a list of 4 star-rated films, it is a list of entries in his Great Movies series, which is separate and apart from his 4 starred films. Here is another quote from Ebert talking about the series: "He made a movie called "7-Up" for British television. It was about a group of British 7-year-olds, their dreams, fears, ambitions, families, prospects. Fair enough. Then, seven years later, he made "14 Up," revisiting them. Then came "21 Up" and, in 1985. "28 Up," and next year, just in time for the Sight & Sound list, will come "35 Up." And so the film will continue to grow... 42... 49... 56... 63... until Apted or his subjects are dead." again, indicating that he thinks of each entry as a part of a whole film, and that future entries must be considered along with past entries. source: https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journ ... f-all-time

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 7:08 pm
by Ebbywebby
Well, I guess it's typical that the forum is more interested in discussing whether "63 Up" should be a "check" than whether it's any good or viewable online.

It does appear to be newly added to KG, so I'll download the third segment from there if it doesn't pop up elsewhere in the near future.

The first two segments already had two substantial surprises.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 7:14 pm
by albajos
Of course we're discussing that. You can keep your blue balls to yourself. It will come on TV here anyway just as all the others.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 10:01 pm
by Ebbywebby
I don't recall this series ever being on TV here, but perhaps I've forgotten. I think I saw all the other segments via online sites.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 10:26 pm
by OldAle1
Ebbywebby wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 7:08 pm
Well, I guess it's typical that the forum is more interested in discussing whether "63 Up" should be a "check" than whether it's any good or viewable online.

It does appear to be newly added to KG, so I'll download the third segment from there if it doesn't pop up elsewhere in the near future.

The first two segments already had two substantial surprises.
Discuss shit? Talk about quality or content? No, I'm afraid you want the wonderful IMDb forums for that...

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 11th, 2019, 11:45 pm
by beasterne
I don’t know how tongue in cheek everyone is, but this IS the official lists updates thread, it makes sense we’d talk about whether official lists should be updated with new titles in here.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 2:51 am
by blocho
By the way, Roger's spirit is eternal.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 3:07 am
by xianjiro
Ebbywebby wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 10:01 pm
I don't recall this series ever being on TV here, but perhaps I've forgotten. I think I saw all the other segments via online sites.
I'm thinking PBS aired at least some of the episodes, but I wouldn't bet money on my memory of that.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 4:03 am
by WalterNeff
But...but...but...it's a TV show and this is iCheckMovies :circle: :ICM: :imdb: :circle:

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 6:52 am
by Fergenaprido
beasterne wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 6:46 pm
Fergenaprido wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 5:07 pm
beasterne wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 4:39 pm


I'm going to respectfully disagree. Roger Ebert placed the Up Series on his list of Great Movies (the source for our list) in 1998: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/grea ... aries-1985. 42 Up was the most recently released film in the series at that time. We subsequently added 49 Up and 56 Up to the official list, even though he never wrote Great Movie write-ups for these films--it was understood that, as part of the Up Series, the next installments in the series should also be included along with the films that were released prior to Ebert's write-up.

And, here is the closing of his review of 42 Up, from 2000(https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/42-up-2000): "Will they all live to 49? Will the series continue until none are alive? This series should be sealed in a time capsule. It is on my list of the 10 greatest films of all time, and is a noble use of the medium." Ebert seems to clearly indicate that the series as a whole belongs on his list of Great Movies, and that any future releases are just a continuation and culmination of what has come before.
But there are reviews of 49 Up and 56 Up. So even if those films were not there with the first Great Movies list went up, I'm under the impression that they were added later.
https://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/s ... -for-apted
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/49-up-2006
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/56-up-2013

Both entries were given 4 stars by Ebert himself, which is the same rating he gave the whole series when he included it in the original list, so to me it still seems like they belong in the list, as later additions. 63 Up can get no such endorsement from Ebert from beyond the grave, however.
Yes, he did give them 4 star ratings, but this isn't a list of 4 star-rated films, it is a list of entries in his Great Movies series, which is separate and apart from his 4 starred films. Here is another quote from Ebert talking about the series: "He made a movie called "7-Up" for British television. It was about a group of British 7-year-olds, their dreams, fears, ambitions, families, prospects. Fair enough. Then, seven years later, he made "14 Up," revisiting them. Then came "21 Up" and, in 1985. "28 Up," and next year, just in time for the Sight & Sound list, will come "35 Up." And so the film will continue to grow... 42... 49... 56... 63... until Apted or his subjects are dead." again, indicating that he thinks of each entry as a part of a whole film, and that future entries must be considered along with past entries. source: https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journ ... f-all-time
If that's the case, and the 4-star ratings aren't considered additions to his Great Movies series, then I would petition we remove 49 and 56 from the list... If they hadn't been released yet when Ebert wrote his review and included the series in his Great Movies list, then they shouldn't be on the list. The logic of "X was great, and Y will be an extension of X, therefore Y will be just as great" is highly fallible. Looking forward to future instalments of a series is not the same as them turning out to actually be good.

Should every sequel made after Ebert's death to a film that was on his original list be added as well, then? Blade Runner 2047 perhaps?

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 8:24 am
by xianjiro
Fergenaprido wrote:
June 12th, 2019, 6:52 am
beasterne wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 6:46 pm
Fergenaprido wrote:
June 11th, 2019, 5:07 pm
But there are reviews of 49 Up and 56 Up. So even if those films were not there with the first Great Movies list went up, I'm under the impression that they were added later.
https://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/s ... -for-apted
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/49-up-2006
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/56-up-2013

Both entries were given 4 stars by Ebert himself, which is the same rating he gave the whole series when he included it in the original list, so to me it still seems like they belong in the list, as later additions. 63 Up can get no such endorsement from Ebert from beyond the grave, however.
Yes, he did give them 4 star ratings, but this isn't a list of 4 star-rated films, it is a list of entries in his Great Movies series, which is separate and apart from his 4 starred films. Here is another quote from Ebert talking about the series: "He made a movie called "7-Up" for British television. It was about a group of British 7-year-olds, their dreams, fears, ambitions, families, prospects. Fair enough. Then, seven years later, he made "14 Up," revisiting them. Then came "21 Up" and, in 1985. "28 Up," and next year, just in time for the Sight & Sound list, will come "35 Up." And so the film will continue to grow... 42... 49... 56... 63... until Apted or his subjects are dead." again, indicating that he thinks of each entry as a part of a whole film, and that future entries must be considered along with past entries. source: https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journ ... f-all-time
If that's the case, and the 4-star ratings aren't considered additions to his Great Movies series, then I would petition we remove 49 and 56 from the list... If they hadn't been released yet when Ebert wrote his review and included the series in his Great Movies list, then they shouldn't be on the list. The logic of "X was great, and Y will be an extension of X, therefore Y will be just as great" is highly fallible. Looking forward to future instalments of a series is not the same as them turning out to actually be good.

Should every sequel made after Ebert's death to a film that was on his original list be added as well, then? Blade Runner 2047 perhaps?
But did he specifically mention any other series? I think the difference here is the format, cast, and director are all known with the UP series. It's just the next installment which he (and many of us) expressly anticipated. Don't believe anyone anticipated Blade runner 2047 would be made at a given interval after Blade Runner was released in 1982.

Probably one of the few series that became analogous would be the second and third episodes of the Star Wars franchise. Everyone knew they were planned and would very likely be made. We weren't disappointed there even if many complained about the actual movies. Ebert alludes to further movies, but doesn't expressly recommend them quite the same way. review here.

Well anyway, we've laid out different viewpoints for the mods to consider. I'm sure they'll discuss it as well and ultimately the decision is theirs to make.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 8:33 am
by xianjiro

"The Up Documentaries"
from the Great Movies website. The individual titles are not listed, but the series is listed and reviewed collectively.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 9:13 am
by cinephage
When I read Ebert's words, I feel he doesn't individualize the movies, but considers the whole seven up project to be innovative and challenging, as a whole. I don't see how 49, 56 or 63 could be excluded from his opening text on Apted's films...

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 11:45 am
by sol
Interesting discussion.

I don't know enough of the film's history to know if we have a precedent, but it would appear that The Other Side of the Wind was listed in the Rosenbaum Essentials list before it was released??

Regarding the discussion here, I would side towards including 63 Up after reading all of the arguments for and against. It will be interesting to see what the mods ultimately decide.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 12:51 pm
by Fergenaprido
It still doesn't make sense to me to include a film that Ebert never saw in a list of his greatest films.

Also, I stumbled upon this phrase on wikipedia (which is apparently a quote from the first book, but I don't have access to that to verify): "The object was, as Ebert put it, to "make a tour of the landmarks of the first century of cinema."[1]"

So, how does one define "the first century of cinema"? Excluding 56 Up (2012), the latest film in the list is Okuribito (2008). Feature films became a thing in 1906, but didn't start happening more regularly until 1909, from what I can glean online. I don't know if a 2008 film was intentionally chosen to celebrate the 100th year of feature films or not. The earliest film in the list is from 1914, and Ebert would coincidentally die in the 100th year after that (or maybe not? Maybe it was planned all along?). Let's say the Up subjects live above average lifespans and we get a 70 Up, 77 Up, and maybe even an 84 Up for a few of them. Would films released in 2026, 2033, and 2040 really be considered landmarks of the first century of cinema?

To be clear, I don't dispute that Ebert was treating all of the Up films as a single unit when he reviewed them. My point is that they are a single unit up until that time, and any subsequent films should have been explicitly reviewed or added to the collective unit to be counted for the list, otherwise I don't think they merit inclusion on that list.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 3:59 pm
by Gershwin
cinephage wrote:
June 12th, 2019, 9:13 am
When I read Ebert's words, I feel he doesn't individualize the movies, but considers the whole seven up project to be innovative and challenging, as a whole. I don't see how 49, 56 or 63 could be excluded from his opening text on Apted's films...
Seconded.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 4:07 pm
by Darth Nevets
Fergenaprido wrote:
June 12th, 2019, 12:51 pm
It still doesn't make sense to me to include a film that Ebert never saw in a list of his greatest films.

Also, I stumbled upon this phrase on wikipedia (which is apparently a quote from the first book, but I don't have access to that to verify): "The object was, as Ebert put it, to "make a tour of the landmarks of the first century of cinema."[1]"

So, how does one define "the first century of cinema"? Excluding 56 Up (2012), the latest film in the list is Okuribito (2008). Feature films became a thing in 1906, but didn't start happening more regularly until 1909, from what I can glean online. I don't know if a 2008 film was intentionally chosen to celebrate the 100th year of feature films or not. The earliest film in the list is from 1914, and Ebert would coincidentally die in the 100th year after that (or maybe not? Maybe it was planned all along?). Let's say the Up subjects live above average lifespans and we get a 70 Up, 77 Up, and maybe even an 84 Up for a few of them. Would films released in 2026, 2033, and 2040 really be considered landmarks of the first century of cinema?

To be clear, I don't dispute that Ebert was treating all of the Up films as a single unit when he reviewed them. My point is that they are a single unit up until that time, and any subsequent films should have been explicitly reviewed or added to the collective unit to be counted for the list, otherwise I don't think they merit inclusion on that list.
As deeply felt as your position is I feel it must be said it doesn't quite hold water. When he added the Up series the latest entries were not released, but the subsequent films were included afterwards. The four star review argument also doesn't work, as he rated thirty films from 2005 alone that highly. However the quote is utterly devoid of context.

That remark appeared in 2002's Great Books, clearly denoting the 20th century which had just passed (I know this is a bugaboo for some non-Americans). Departures had not been filmed, much less been the inspiration for the remark. The reason no other film from later is added is because he liked to mull over the choices, and he happened to die. His last update was added posthumously, as was the fourth book's publication.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 5:12 pm
by Fergenaprido
Darth Nevets wrote:
June 12th, 2019, 4:07 pm
Fergenaprido wrote:
June 12th, 2019, 12:51 pm
It still doesn't make sense to me to include a film that Ebert never saw in a list of his greatest films.

Also, I stumbled upon this phrase on wikipedia (which is apparently a quote from the first book, but I don't have access to that to verify): "The object was, as Ebert put it, to "make a tour of the landmarks of the first century of cinema."[1]"

So, how does one define "the first century of cinema"? Excluding 56 Up (2012), the latest film in the list is Okuribito (2008). Feature films became a thing in 1906, but didn't start happening more regularly until 1909, from what I can glean online. I don't know if a 2008 film was intentionally chosen to celebrate the 100th year of feature films or not. The earliest film in the list is from 1914, and Ebert would coincidentally die in the 100th year after that (or maybe not? Maybe it was planned all along?). Let's say the Up subjects live above average lifespans and we get a 70 Up, 77 Up, and maybe even an 84 Up for a few of them. Would films released in 2026, 2033, and 2040 really be considered landmarks of the first century of cinema?

To be clear, I don't dispute that Ebert was treating all of the Up films as a single unit when he reviewed them. My point is that they are a single unit up until that time, and any subsequent films should have been explicitly reviewed or added to the collective unit to be counted for the list, otherwise I don't think they merit inclusion on that list.
As deeply felt as your position is I feel it must be said it doesn't quite hold water. When he added the Up series the latest entries were not released, but the subsequent films were included afterwards. The four star review argument also doesn't work, as he rated thirty films from 2005 alone that highly. However the quote is utterly devoid of context.

That remark appeared in 2002's Great Books, clearly denoting the 20th century which had just passed (I know this is a bugaboo for some non-Americans). Departures had not been filmed, much less been the inspiration for the remark. The reason no other film from later is added is because he liked to mull over the choices, and he happened to die. His last update was added posthumously, as was the fourth book's publication.
I wouldn't say this is a deeply held position; rather I enjoy a rigorous debate supported by logic, and I'm a bit persnickety about things making sense and being internally consistent. If, at the end of the day, the mods make a decision to add 63 Up and can support that decision with sound logic, I'm not going to storm off and throw a hissy-fit. :D Plus, I think you might be confusing (A) my position with (B) the subsequent questions I was asking and theories I was exploring/positing.

(A) My position is that films which Ebert didn't see shouldn't be on a list of the Greatest Movies Ebert saw. I fail to see how this doesn't hold water.

I already mentioned that the latest entries had not been released when he wrote the review. On the site it lists the date 1985 for the Up series. By then, the first 4 films had been released (1964, 1970, 1977, 1984), so it seems clear he was reviewing all four in one go. The date of the review online is 1998, by which time two more entries had been shown (1991 and 1998), and he clearly references all 6. the next two (2005 and 2012) have separate entries on the site (as do the previous three: 28 Up, 35 Up, 42 Up), but aren't mentioned in any revised review of the series as a whole (on the site... I don't know if there is anything in the books).

Also, "When he added the Up series the latest entries were not released, but the subsequent films were included afterwards." - But included by whom? As far as I can tell, they've only been included by us here on icm, and that's somewhat arbitrary/open to interpretation. There's no explicit listing anywhere else that I can find mentioned all 8 (now 9) films in Ebert's list. When the list was first added to icm in 2009, it obviously didn't contain 56 Up yet. I wasn't on the forum in 2012 when it came out, but I'm guessing a similar discussion happened back them to decide if it should be added, or a mod made a decision and added it once it was released. :shrug:

(B) The quote and questions I mention after are more for me probing and trying to understand the intention(s) behind the book (or books now, rather). I'm aware the first one was published in 2003, before some of the films in the list were conceived, but I presume that those films were then included in one of the later versions published in 2006, 2011, or 2016 (which was posthumous, as you mention). I don't have any of the book, so cannot confirm any of the questions that I posed, but your point about "the first century" referring to the 20th century makes sense to me.

Speaking of which, "clearly denoting the 20th century which had just passed (I know this is a bugaboo for some non-Americans)" - I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. As a non-American, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be flattered or offended. :mw_confused:

"His last update was added posthumously, as was the fourth book's publication." - Aside from the 2016 book, what other posthumous update are you referring to?

- - -

Another general question: Is the icm List supposed to be based on any of the published books, or just the list that's posted online? The blurb in the description doesn't really give much context/information:
A list of movies which famous movie critic Roger Ebert considers to be the best movies of all-time. Ebert has written extensive reviews for each and every one of these movies.
And while we're at it, can we at least all agree that lists should be properly capitalized? It should be titled Roger Ebert: The Great Movies not Roger Ebert: the great movies

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 5:20 pm
by Apu

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 5:58 pm
by WalterNeff
Updated.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 6:48 pm
by PeacefulAnarchy
Fergenaprido wrote:
June 12th, 2019, 5:12 pm

Another general question: Is the icm List supposed to be based on any of the published books, or just the list that's posted online? The blurb in the description doesn't really give much context/information:
A list of movies which famous movie critic Roger Ebert considers to be the best movies of all-time. Ebert has written extensive reviews for each and every one of these movies.
What's posted online.

Also the argument to the released/unreleased stuff would be that these aren't really sequels, they're continuations of a single work. To him (and many others) The Up series isn't a series of related works released every 7 years. The Up Series is a single life spanning project that gets updated every 7 years. In that context the fact that he didn't see the ending doesn't change that he saw the work as a unified whole and put that project on his list. Reading through the brief comments of the people who put it on the S&S list they give me that same sense. They keep coming back to the idea, even if none of them say "this includes future installments," that they are canonizing the whole series as a single work.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 6:48 pm
by jeroeno
Just add a small text to the info above the actual Ebert list. Something like : "Roger named the whole 7-up series but because he wasn't alive to actually see the three latest additions to that series, we name them in the info but don't actually list them in this official list".

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 6:56 pm
by frbrown
Just two films again. If my math is correct, at the pace of two films per month it should take 8 years until the list is completed.

Re: Official lists updates

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 6:57 pm
by PeacefulAnarchy
jeroeno wrote:
June 12th, 2019, 6:48 pm
Just add a small text to the info above the actual Ebert list. Something like : "Roger named the whole 7-up series but because he wasn't alive to actually see the three latest additions to that series, we name them in the info but don't actually list them in this official list".
He did actually see and review the previous two additions to the series, he just didn't update his review of the series as a whole to explicitly state their inclusion.