Year Cup organization

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

Two quick questions: (1) do I PM you with my picks, bure, or do I post them here? (2) Is the idea that I'm picking the five flicks I like best from my given year, or am I choosing the movies I think are most likely to be liked by the other participants and, thus, of winning?

Looking forward to it

[flip]

i'll volunteer to be an alternate manager in case anyone drops out, though given general life busy-ness i think it's probably easiest for me right now just to participate more casually. i'll try to watch some things!

and i'll answer evelyn's question #2, though i'm sure you'll get other answers that are different from mine: it's traditional in these cups to show films that haven't been too widely seen, so it would be unusual to show stagecoach or rules of the game, for example. but they also don't need to be complete obscurities, just films that will likely be new to several members. beyond that, it's really up to you! you can show films that illustrate your own cinematic interests or personality, or show obscure gems you think deserve wider exposure, or films you think might generate interesting discussion, as you like. i don't think many people here will care who "wins", and i think most of us think of the competition part of the cup just as a way to incentivize people to watch the competing films, but also to talk about them afterwards - and i think that's really the point of these exercises, we have a set of common films that a lot of people here watch around the same time and can talk about right afterwards.

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

Thanks for that reply, flip That precisely describes what I'd been hoping for, and what I've been enjoying so much about this forum's set up more generally, so this promises to be a lot of fun!

[mesnalty]

I've got a decent little list of potential '74 picks, so I'll volunteer as a backup manager too.

[Curtis, baby]

No concrete guidelines to what you can pick. The tendency is to not do anything super canon. Movies that have been seen by a bunch of people often get picked, but not Marnie or Late Spring. Also it's like, there's a difference between one or two of your films having some prominence and all of them being S&S t500.

But in the end it's very personal. It's just about having people watch and discuss what you want and what you think needs more exposure. If someone genuinely believed Citizen Kane needed more exposure, well, they'd be an insane person, but there'd be no problem with them picking Citizen Kane.

you can post your picks here, or you can send them to me if you want them to be "secret" until they're up, which in the past some people have and some people have not.

[karl]

I dunno. Kinda torn between 72 and 89. The latter has the advantage of being a year we haven't "polled" yet, but I think I could some five slightly more splendid obscurities from the first. May just flip a coin. Will letcha know tomo.

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

If someone genuinely believed Citizen Kane needed more exposure, well, they'd be an insane person, but there'd be no problem with them picking Citizen Kane.

Lol, love it! Right-o, I'll send you my provisional picks soon.

[kanafani]

I sent my ballot and reserve the right to drive bure crazy by periodically tinkering with it.

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

Sent + ditto, re: tinkering!

[karl]

I have a handful of 89s that no one's seen that are so nice, very nice... But 72 just has too much going for it.

Now I just have to decide which of the four terrific Polish movies from the year I want to show...

Bure yr five's in the mail but as the other say I too may change em down the line.

[Curtis, baby]

kanafani, I never received your picks?

ItsUhhMe, DT., Evelyn, karl, I have yours

[kanafani]

kanafani, I never received your picks?

ItsUhhMe, DT., Evelyn, karl, I have yours

Weird sent again

[Mario Gaborovic]

I can't find films that I wanted to show, so I'll go with 1966 instead.

[Curtis, baby]

Ok. I'm switching to 2011. FLABREZU says this is suicide

kanafani, received yours.

[Curtis, baby]

Wow, yall are picking some obscure films. My films for 2011 average 6100 views on letterboxd. All of you guys picked groups of films averaging several hundred views max

I dunno what year I'm doing. I guess I need to reconcile myself to the fact that I won't be able to pick five films that I averaged 4.8 stars... gonna find a year with five more obscure films that average 4.1 or 4.2 hopefully

[Curtis, baby]

ok I'll do 1959 like a boring fuck

but my picks will be far from boring at least. max few hundred views on letterboxd, max a small handful of yous all having seen

[Curtis, baby]

1959 isn't boring enough. Going with 1962

Really killing the post count game here

[flip]

Wow, yall are picking some obscure films. My films for 2011 average 6100 views on letterboxd. All of you guys picked groups of films averaging several hundred views max

There's a dramatic recency bias at letterboxd that you don't find at SCFZ, so I think if you're looking at letterboxd views for 2011 films, you should probably divide the numbers by five or by ten if you want to roughly gauge how 'obscure' the films are (in SCFZ terms) compared to something from the 1930s or 1960s. For example, I just looked up two random French classics -- A Day in the Country (4.8k views) and My Night at Maud's (6.8k) views -- and compared them to two random 21st century French films which have been seen a lot: Holy Motors has 28k views, and Amelie has 178k views.

[ItsUhhMee]

Wow, yall are picking some obscure films. My films for 2011 average 6100 views on letterboxd. All of you guys picked groups of films averaging several hundred views max

I dunno what year I'm doing. I guess I need to reconcile myself to the fact that I won't be able to pick five films that I averaged 4.8 stars... gonna find a year with five more obscure films that average 4.1 or 4.2 hopefully

I don't use Letterboxd, so, I have no idea how many views there are. But, I know my films aren't exactly well seen, nor are they really unknown. I chose them because they are things I'd like to share, and because I know not a whole lot of people have seen them.

[Curtis, baby]

First two matches will be 1972 v. 1939 and 1983 v. 1962

@karl @Evelyn @DT. please up your movies and let me know if you're not able to up your movies

[Curtis, baby]

Wow, yall are picking some obscure films. My films for 2011 average 6100 views on letterboxd. All of you guys picked groups of films averaging several hundred views max

There's a dramatic recency bias at letterboxd that you don't find at SCFZ, so I think if you're looking at letterboxd views for 2011 films, you should probably divide the numbers by five or by ten if you want to roughly gauge how 'obscure' the films are (in SCFZ terms) compared to something from the 1930s or 1960s. For example, I just looked up two random French classics -- A Day in the Country (4.8k views) and My Night at Maud's (6.8k) views -- and compared them to two random 21st century French films which have been seen a lot: Holy Motors has 28k views, and Amelie has 178k views.

True enough, yeah, but my 2011 flicks definitely had been seen more by SCFZ than what I'll go with using 1962. Sokurov, Kore-eda, I was gonna pick obvious shit that people might not have gotten around to yet. Everyone else seemed to be picking more lesser name directors, so I thought I'd do the same

[flip]

yeah, i'm sure you were aware of that, but i guess it wasn't until i started using letterboxd views as tiebreakers in some of the polls that i realized just how dramatically skewed the lbox viewing is to recent film. 1962 should be cool, and i hope i'll finally get around to watching requiem for a heavyweight, which i've been meaning to see for years!

[rischka]

happy birthday flippers

[kanafani]

Ya flip, quite the milestone.

[flip]

thanks!

not 100 but it is my birthday