1001 Movies You Must See

[ChrisReynolds]

The descriptions for the 2020 editions are up on Amazon
https://www.amazon.co.uk/1001-Movies-Yo ... 1788402561
https://www.amazon.com/1001-Movies-You- ... 1438089112

New additions will include:
Joker,
Parasite
Little Women
For Sama
The Lighthouse
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

[Cippenham]

I completed this once but now not keen on watching all the new films so not going to do it again. But good luck if you do.

[erde]

I might try to complete this next year, after I finish my current major goal (TSPDT, 48 left). I'm at 811/1007 now, so it will require some conscious effort. But it would be nice to start the project with the next version at least.

[joachimt]

I used to follow this list and completed it, but the new additions are generally newer films not as good as the ones replaced so for now, not interested in completing it again.

I completed this once but now not keen on watching all the new films so not going to do it again. But good luck if you do.

You keep saying the same thing every year.

[erde]

Just looked at the yearly distribution of films in the most recent 1001 book/list:

1890-1899: 0
1900-1909: 2
1910-1919: 4
1920-1929: 42
1930-1939: 84
1940-1949: 86
1950-1959: 128
1960-1969: 153
1970-1979: 158
1980-1989: 154
1990-1999: 121
2000-2009: 32
2010-2019: 43

I wonder if they are going to keep repressing the 00's (32 films in total; compare with e.g. 121 films from the 90's and 154 films from the 80's). Soon there will not be many left to remove anymore...

[Cippenham]

They just include new films to sell the book and drop in many cases better old films, so perhaps the list gets worse. Erde is correct, there is madness in their method.

[weirdboy]

The thing that bothers me most about it is they always add 6 new films from the most recent year, and then randomly drop from prior years--usually at least a couple new editions from the previous year's list.

If they actually took the time to reevaluate earlier films each year I would consider it more worth my time. What they do is worse than university textbooks.

[jal90]

Also, their additions are questionable at best. The list seems unable to dictate or predict whether the film will stay prevalent or not because it doesn't even make any effort to understand that. It just barely works as a very limited chronicler of its time and that is not how you build a solid canon.

[Mulholland]

Just got the new edition and looked through.

Added
Parasite
For Sama
Little Women
The Farewell
Monos
Booksmart
The Lighthouse
Portrait of a Lady on Fire
Joker
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Lamerica
Toy Story 4 (now the Toy Story Quartet)
Avengers Endgame (two part entry with Infinity War)

Removals
Vice
The Greatest Showman
Crazy Rich Asians
Mother!
A Star is Born
The Shape of Water
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Wadjda
American Beauty
Gangs of New York
The Blue Kite

[blueboybob]

I have the quick add and removal of new films (like all those removals). They should have a "release year > 10 years ago" rule or something

[joachimt]

Thanks, Mulholland!
I'll update the list later today.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Just got the new edition and looked through.

Hmm, let's play the "what replaced what" game:

Obvious ones:
Lamerica > The Blue Kite (I wonder what prompted this one?)
The Farewell > Crazy Rich Asians
For Sama > Wadjda
Monos > Mother!

Less obvious:
Parasite > The Shape of Water
Vice >Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
American Beauty > Booksmart

I'm reaching:
Joker >Gangs of New York
Little Women > Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Hmm, maybe this doesn't work for all of them
The Lighthouse >The Greatest Showman
Portrait of a Lady on Fire >A Star is Born

[Mulholland]

Just got the new edition and looked through.

Hmm, let's play the "what replaced what" game:

Obvious ones:
Lamerica > The Blue Kite (I wonder what prompted this one?)

Comparing the books with my old edition, it looks like they corrected Dear Diary being in the wrong year. So they moved that into the slot where The Blue Kite was (I guess they thought it was worth saving Dear Diary over The Blue Kite) and found another 1994 film to take the place of Dear Diary within the page layout.

Basically, found a proofing error and took the lazy approach to fixing it.

[OldAle1]

Every time there's an update here and I see the films changed, I'm reminded of why I never think about this book/list except when I see this thread updated...

[Torgo]

Just got the new edition and looked through.

Added
Parasite
For Sama
Little Women
The Farewell
Monos
Booksmart
The Lighthouse
Portrait of a Lady on Fire
Joker
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Lamerica
Toy Story 4 (now the Toy Story Quartet)
Avengers Endgame (two part entry with Infinity War)

Removals
Vice
The Greatest Showman
Crazy Rich Asians
Mother!
A Star is Born
The Shape of Water
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Wadjda
American Beauty
Gangs of New York
The Blue Kite

Thanks for the info. When it comes to popular movies, I think 2019 was infinitely stronger than 2018. Most of the removals really weren't worth the entry at all.

@erde: The snub of the complete 00s decade is insane.

[Ebbywebby]

My favorite films on that list of additions/subtractions are Mother! and Three Billboards. Phooey.

[Torgo]

I'm a big fan of Aronofsky myself, which is why I wrote "most". ^^

To pack even the fourth Toy Story on a list with that premise is ridiculous. Imagine you're through 999 films of the list and have checked off Toy Story 1-3, but still miss Part 4. Don't you dare to die ..!


Overall, I like the list, but they clearly have problems to manage the output from 2000 onwards without cropping the many classics in the core of the 1001-canon too much. It's a cul-de-sac.

[Good_Will_Harding]

Just got the new edition and looked through.

Added
Parasite
For Sama
Little Women
The Farewell
Monos
Booksmart
The Lighthouse
Portrait of a Lady on Fire
Joker
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Lamerica
Toy Story 4 (now the Toy Story Quartet)
Avengers Endgame (two part entry with Infinity War)

Removals
Vice
The Greatest Showman
Crazy Rich Asians
Mother!
A Star is Born
The Shape of Water
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Wadjda
American Beauty
Gangs of New York
The Blue Kite

Always curious to see what gets added and left out (though I'm still satly over the likes of Princess Mononoke and A Separation getting the axe years back). Usually there's a crop of older films added that I can use as a resource for recommendations and blind spots, but ehh all current releases this year (surprised they left out The Irishman though). I picked up the 2012 edition for like $5 at a bargain outlet a few years ago and never felt the need to upgrade. Also kinda amusing how they heavily advertised the previous edition by having A Star is Born on the cover and it gets canned the following year.

[Onderhond]

More like 1001 movies that'll make you want to kill yourself. What cruft.

[brokenface]

Just got the new edition and looked through.

Added
Parasite
For Sama
Little Women
The Farewell
Monos
Booksmart
The Lighthouse
Portrait of a Lady on Fire
Joker
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Lamerica
Toy Story 4 (now the Toy Story Quartet)
Avengers Endgame (two part entry with Infinity War)

Removals
Vice
The Greatest Showman
Crazy Rich Asians
Mother!
A Star is Born
The Shape of Water
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Wadjda
American Beauty
Gangs of New York
The Blue Kite

It's their usual strategy. But I have to say, putting aside the two tag-ons & that random 90s swap, I like almost all of the 10 entries for 2019 more than the ones they're replacing.

[Mulholland]

It's their usual strategy. But I have to say, putting aside the two tag-ons & that random 90s swap, I like almost all of the 10 entries for 2019 more than the ones they're replacing.

I have the same thing with the 2019 additions. I think if this list were being made from scratch each year without editorial concerns, most of the 2019 entries would stick around.

Still ludicrous that, with the exit of Wadjda that there are zero 2012 films. I mean we all know how bad they are with 2000s representation, but unless they use the COVID film-lite year as a chance to redraft the list (like they did YEARS ago when older films like Mary Poppins and A Throw of Dice entered the list) we're going to see the 2010s fall to the same fate as the 2000s.

[weirdboy]

Yeah they really need to just do an overhaul, because these annual crap updates are destroying the list for recent years.

[Mulholland]

Next year sees the UK annual release coincide with the American biennial release. Given that they'd struggle to get 12 films from 2020 that could be added that would help sell a new addition... they may have to.

Otherwise it'll be Tenet, Mulan and Tenet (repeated because of an editing error)

[joachimt]

List updated

[joachimt]

All editions version also updated:
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/1001 ... /joachimt/

[erde]

Thanks to Mulholland for the info and to joachimt for the update!

Here are the updated numbers:
1890-1899: 0
1900-1909: 2
1910-1919: 4
1920-1929: 42
1930-1939: 84
1940-1949: 86
1950-1959: 128
1960-1969: 153
1970-1979: 158
1980-1989: 154
1990-1999: 120
2000-2009: 31
2010-2019: 47
In total: 1009

So the 90's and 2000's both go down by one, and the 2010's goes up by four - thanks to the Avenger and Toy Story fusions which bring the total film count up by two to 1009. The the great snubbing of the 00's is still puzzling to me. (Do they really think, for example, that the 90's were "89 films better" as a decade than the 00's?) Like many other's, I'm really surprised if they do not revise the whole package and level out the numbers in the coming years (perhaps for the 10th anniversary, if not already for the next edition because of Covid).

[PeacefulAnarchy]

(perhaps for the 10th anniversary, if not already for the next edition because of Covid).

Do you mean 20th anniversary in 2023

[erde]

(perhaps for the 10th anniversary, if not already for the next edition because of Covid).

Do you mean 20th anniversary in 2023

Yes, of course. My mistake. The latest bigger revision was on the 10th anniversary in 2013.

[xianjiro]

Has anyone tried to figure out if their editorial staff might have changed?

I do think it rather suspicious that their cover choice for last year's edition is now not even worth seeing before you die (I'd say it never was). it's hard not to wonder about their motivations if there hasn't been a change in whatever body 'votes' for the titles.

Additionally, this new edition every year doesn't really smell right to me: seems way more like a cash grab (go figure) than an honest attempt to compile a definitive list of must-see movies. Honestly, if we're talking best of all time, a new edition each decade would be more than enough.

But someone's clearly gotta make a buck here.

[brokenface]

Just got the new edition and looked through.

Hmm, let's play the "what replaced what" game:

Obvious ones:
Lamerica > The Blue Kite (I wonder what prompted this one?)

Comparing the books with my old edition, it looks like they corrected Dear Diary being in the wrong year. So they moved that into the slot where The Blue Kite was (I guess they thought it was worth saving Dear Diary over The Blue Kite) and found another 1994 film to take the place of Dear Diary within the page layout.

Basically, found a proofing error and took the lazy approach to fixing it.

Made me realise that the choice to just delete from 2000s is probably also just a shortcut to keep the editing minimal between issues with nothing changing in layout pre 2000.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

It's a cash grab, but I think it's more about new buyers seeing the book as new and up to date, rather than hoping to get people to upgrade every year. Imagine you're a casual buyer in a bookstore who likes movies, 1001 movies to see before you die catches your eye, sounds cool. You open it up and see the most recent films. If they're from this last year you get a feeling of "oh this is fresh and up to date," if the most recent movie is 10 years old you'll be less inclined to buy it because it's outdated and maybe there's a more up to date book out there.

The way they do the updates says that they don't make all that much money and so they only want to have to copy edit the last 30-50 pages of the book instead of the whole thing.

[xianjiro]

Makes sense. I wonder what share of sales go to institutions like libraries. While not every library in my local system has a copy, I imagine there is a fair amount of pressure to get the new edition each year in "larger" libraries. That's not a terrible income stream if one can tap it.

[Good_Will_Harding]

Regarding current release additions, I'm wondering if they intentionally leave off films produced by streaming serives, i.e. the exclusion of stuff like The Irishman, Marriage Story, etc. Of course Roma would be the exception here, but I'm curious as to the next edition, where practically every 2020 film that's gotten a certain level of acclaim since March has had at least a partial streaming launch.

[Onderhond]

I do think it rather suspicious that their cover choice for last year's edition is now not even worth seeing before you die (I'd say it never was).

Maybe someone saw it and died, and it was getting a little too real for them?

[xianjiro]

I do think it rather suspicious that their cover choice for last year's edition is now not even worth seeing before you die (I'd say it never was).

Maybe someone saw it and died, and it was getting a little too real for them?

All I know is I died laughing when I watched it.

[weirdboy]

I have not seen the cover recently. What was on the cover last year?

[Torgo]

A Star is Born, probably .. aaand it's gone!

[erde]

Made me realise that the choice to just delete from 2000s is probably also just a shortcut to keep the editing minimal between issues with nothing changing in layout pre 2000.

Oh no, I'm afraid this sounds like a credible reason. How very practical.

But would it be much more copy-editing work to just take out films from another decade like, say, the bloated 80's for one year and leave the other decades untouched? Next year the removals could be done just from the 90's, then from the 70's etc., from one decade per new edition. Then the removals would be more even in the long run and the amount of copy-editing per year would still remain small. Of course, their mechanical technique would be more transparent then. Now people can just think that they remove new films and keep older films for aesthetic reasons, not financial ones.

[erde]

By the way, I didn't find a challenge thread for this list (official or unofficial). Isn't there any? If this is the case, I can very well begin one, if no one else is willing.

[max-scl]

By the way, I didn't find a challenge thread for this list (official or unofficial). Isn't there any? If this is the case, I can very well begin one, if no one else is willing.

I would participate, this is the list I most want to finish but I'm never motivated enough to work on it.