Boxoffice.com's Top 100 Films of All Time 2013: THE RESULTS (final list in OP)

[riczhang]

I dunno... if what you look for in movies are explosions and robot smashing, most art house films fall pretty short.

 

Well, I'm not sure what type of person looks solely for explosions and robot smashing.  

[luna]

my point is that the big box office films, whether of today or yesteryear (lol, i have to use that word) are largely fit for entertainment and not much else. while i'll always defend casablanca over transformers i'm not going to pretend that the purposes of the two are really much different. neither are deep or meaningful and exist merely to delight. that isn't a bad thing, but i think the pretension that old audiences were more thoughtful or audacious in their choices is absurd.

 

now i'd also argue that in order for a movie to truly be a masterpiece it has to be something more than just entertainment, but that's a different thing entirely.

[riczhang]

I can think of 50-100 great films that made a splash at the box office and 1 million little seen "arthouse" films that are terrible... you just make yourself sound like the Anton Ego of film

 

In relation to the Top 100 of all time, Great simply can't be the standard. Sure there's 50-100 great films that made a splash at the box office, and I'd even say that there's more. I mean there's quite a few even from last year alone. But, how many are truly, truly, truly brilliant and as a result Top 100 worthy? Very Few. And of course there are many arthouse duds, it's physically impossible to be perfect, but as a whole there are so many more, and proportionately more brilliant arthouse films than blockbusters. Blockbusters don't really hold a candle to small films, provided people actually build up their patience and search for those gems. 

[Plain Old Tele]

Well, I'm not sure what type of person looks solely for explosions and robot smashing.

What do you mean, you're talking to them right now. Edited August 5, 2013 by Telemachos

[Gopher]

Who's calling Amour pretentious? Are you kidding me? It's a movie about love and dying. It's about literally the only two things we do in life. The end of a very real relationship. Nothing pretentious about it. 

 

Would I rather watch Pacific Rim again than revisit Amour? Of course. I wouldn't run back to the theater to see The Act of Killing either, or Requiem for a Dream. Does my life feel enriched because I got to watch those movies? Absolutely. 

[Blankments]

I can think of 50-100 great films that made a splash at the box office and 1 million little seen "arthouse" films that are terrible... you just make yourself sound like the Anton Ego of film

 

Sorry, but this made me think that we need a "BoxOffice.com's Top Film Quotes/Speeches of All Time." I mean, this is great:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPOoFkrh94

[lab276]

I agree with ric that movies like Lincoln would've been much more successful if released 20 years ago as opposed to now. I don't see why it should matter though, those movies are still being made and will always be made. People aren't just going to ignore them years from now because they weren't in the top 10.

[luna]

a movie like lincoln probably would have been more popular, but that has nothing to do with originality - back then it was formulaic dramas that hit the top, now it's formulaic action that more strongly features. it's still just mostly entertainment that dominates the box office, no matter what era we're talking about.

Edited August 5, 2013 by lisa

[riczhang]

I agree with ric that movies like Lincoln would've been much more successful if released 20 years ago as opposed to now. I don't see why it should matter though, those movies are still being made and will always be made. People aren't just going to ignore them years from now because they weren't in the top 10.

 

It matters because when Steven Spielberg makes a movie like Lincoln it almost doesn't make it to theatres and instead has to settle for HBO. That's why it matters. Non-cookie cutter, GA pandering films are a dying craft, and it's fucking pathetic. 

[lab276]

It matters because when Steven Spielberg makes a movie like Lincoln it almost doesn't make it to theatres and instead has to settle for HBO. That's why it matters. Non-cookie cutter, GA pandering films are a dying craft, and it's fucking pathetic.

As long as they're still being made...?

[riczhang]

As long as they're still being made...?

 

The point is that when Steven Spielberg can't get a non-cookie cutter film into theatres without great efforts, there is something wrong with the system and it will come to the point where these films just aren't made anymore. 

[lab276]

The point is that when Steven Spielberg can't get a non-cookie cutter film into theatres without great efforts, there is something wrong with the system and it will come to the point where these films just aren't made anymore.

If you were talking about a genre like "musicals" or "westerns", I'd agree. But we're not, we're talking much more broadly about "indie" films. Creative people aren't just going to stop being creative because they can't get their films into theatres. They might have to go to HBO or release direct to video but they're still going to get made.

[riczhang]

If you were talking about a genre like "musicals" or "westerns", I'd agree. But we're not, we're talking much more broadly about "indie" films. Creative people aren't just going to stop being creative because they can't get their films into theatres. They might have to go to HBO or release direct to video but they're still going to get made.

 

No. But, movies are meant to be seen on the big screen and releasing them to HBO or DOV is degrading. 

[lab276]

No. But, movies are meant to be seen on the big screen and releasing them to HBO or DOV is degrading.

I lament falling admissions too.

[DAR]

Well I consider tv to superior to film in general these days.

[riczhang]

I lament falling admissions too.

 

That too. At least there seems to be a pick-up again. 

 

 

Well I consider tv to superior to film in general these days.

 

True. TV is truly in its Golden Age, whereas Film had that decades ago. 

[ThatMovieGuy]

Game Of Thrones is Boss! Just thought I'd throw that in.

[Walt Disney]

Thanks for putting in the effort to do this again, Sims. I know it is hard work and your effort is appreciated.

 

My own personal feeling is that last year's scoring system was better. I don't mind extra points being awarded to the top films, but I feel awarding all films within the same range the same points makes going through the trouble to rank them a waste. I much prefer every spot having a different point value. I think the new scoring system had an effect on this year's list.

[Walt Disney]

That too. At least there seems to be a pick-up again. 

 

 

 

True. TV is truly in its Golden Age, whereas Film had that decades ago. 

 

 

TV's golden age is over with. It was a long time ago. The 80's and 90's might have been a golden age for TV, but no longer. It's a golden age for premium cable channels, but most TV is horrible these days. Bad reality TV, lots of people with no talent getting paid huge dollars to act like fools, and too many opinion shows with people unqualified to give their opinions.

 

The days of quality sitcoms, interesting game shows, and fun prime time TV shows is over. Other than Game of Thrones, re-runs of classic TV shows, sports, and movies....I don't really bother with TV much anymore.

 

Movies are still where it's at entertainment wise.

[ThatMovieGuy]

game of thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Mad men, Breaking Bad, Dexter, The Walking Dead, Spartacus, sons and anarchy and more I'd say t.v is pretty damn good right now. not a fan of new sitcoms though Id rather watch re-runs of Seinfeld then watch how I met your mother. Big bang theory is ok. and the animated mobojumbo from seth Macfarlane is decent if you watch it once every blue moon.