The “Unrankables”
There’s been a little controversy over some particular flicks popping up on Flickchart for ranking. Some users seem to figure that Flickchart is a bit too liberal in the material it approves for ranking. WWE wrestling specials? Pixar animated shorts? Television pilot episodes? Looney Tunes? Captain EO?
Well, it all started there, didn’t it? Captain EO is a “4-D” film that debuted in Walt Disney theme parks in 1986 and ran there exclusively through the ’90s. The 17-minute sci-fi film (at the time, the most expensive movie ever made on a per-minute basis) starred Michael Jackson, and was essentially a giant music video with 3-D imagery, flashing lights and plenty of smoke. Following Jackson’s death, the film made a return to Disney parks in 2010, but it has never had a theatrical release.
A Michael Jackson music video that has only appeared at DisneyLand? Surely this obliterates the definition of a “film”. But consider the talent involved: Captain EO was directed by Francis Ford Coppola, executive produced by George Lucas, features music by James Horner (who scored the two highest-grossing films of all time, Avatar and Titanic), and co-stars Angelica Huston. On this basis, Flickchart’s creators seemed to agree that Captain EO could be included in the rankings. For completists, who seem to want to rank everything they’ve seen, this was good news; for purists, whose definitions of “film” are far narrower, it rankled. Now we’re getting short films (like Luxo Jr., Pixar’s first CG animated film, in which director John Lasseter coaxes more emotion out of a table lamp in two minutes than any director has gotten out of Keanu Reeves during his entire career), musicians’ tour videos, feature length making-of documentaries.
It’s all their fault.
But just a minute here: Perhaps, instead of flying in the face of the definition of “film”, Captain EO was opening up the definition of a “flick”. This, here, is “Flickchart”, not “Filmchart”, and maybe there’s a good reason for that.
If I’m too liberal in my definitions of what constitutes a “flick” suitable for ranking, you’ll have to forgive me. After all, I believe I am the person (or, at least, one of the people) who submitted Captain EO to Flickchart for consideration, and if you’ve seen some of those fantastic Pixar shorts come up, I’m responsible for those, too. Instead of getting my hackles up that Flickchart’s creators are allowing too many screwy flicks into the global rankings, I prefer to applaud them for celebrating the power of choice.
Some people may believe that animated films are not “real” films, choosing to dismiss them as “just cartoons”. (Indeed, even though it appears that way on Flickchart, “animation” is not a genre, it’s an art form; but that’s a discussion for another time.) Some may figure that direct-to-DVD movies do not merit the same recognition as theatrically-released feature films. (Half of Steven Seagal‘s filmography should be automatically disqualified.) And then we get into the realm of extended TV episodes, which Flickchart allows, particularly if they received their own DVD release: see Family Guy: Blue Harvest, Stargate Atlantis: Rising, or Prison Break: The Final Break.
They’re Best Picture Oscar nominees. How can they be “just cartoons”?
What about U2: Live at Red Rocks – Under a Blood Red Sky or Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows? Now we’re really stretching the boundaries, because let’s face it: These are not “movies”. They might stretch the definition of “documentary”, perhaps, but they are not movies in the same way Bowling for Columbine and An Inconvenient Truth are.
But the fact is, we all have the ability to choose the flicks that appear on our individual charts. It’s always up to the user whether to rank a film or not. You don’t want to rank it? Just click the “Haven’t Seen It” button and move on; you’ll never see it again.
Of course, there are some people, like myself, who may feel the compulsion to rank everything they know they’ve seen, whether they want to or not. In my case, that leads to inaccuracies in my Flickchart: I’ve added films that I haven’t seen in over 15 years, and thus, I don’t remember well enough to properly rank them against other films. It’s one reason why I’ve chosen to create a second Flickchart account, one that will not have as many films on it, but I feel will be more accurate by the time I’m finished with it.
Seen ’em. Don’t really remember ’em. Why rank ’em? I dunno. (Especially that last one…)
Still, I feel that I’d like to advertise that I’ve seen certain films that rank high on the global charts – like Pulp Fiction or E.T. – even if I don’t feel I can properly recall them for ranking. To this end, I might humbly offer a suggestion to Flickchart’s creators: What if there could be a way to rank a movie as “Seen, But Unranked”? There could be a variety of reasons for this: I don’t want Pulp Fiction to be my highest-ranked “unseen” movie if I don’t have to; somebody else could acknowledge that they’ve seen those Pixar shorts, but not have to rank them against The Godfather and Requiem for a Dream; yet another user could keep animation the heck away from their chart entirely, yet acknowledge to the rest of the Flickchart community that they have indulged in the occasional “lesser” flick from time to time. (Anyway, I digress; it’s just a thought.)
Regardless, this willingness to allow a plethora of choices into the database is part of makes Flickchart so wonderful: Every individual user is allowed to tailor their personal chart to their own tastes. Want to exclude short films? Go ahead. Want to rank only short films? You can do that, too. Want to rank only sci-fi movies from the 1950s? Well, you’re allowed. The choice is up to you. Let’s not point the finger at Captain EO; let’s appreciate it for helping to bring a little variety to Flickchart. And instead of questioning why a flick is even in the database at all, let’s just hit the “Haven’t Seen It” button, and go about our rankings…
This post is part of our User Showcase series. You can find Nigel as johnmason on Flickchart. If you’re interested to submit your own story or article describing your thoughts about movies and Flickchart, read our original post for how to become a guest writer here on the Flickchart Blog.
I have difficulty wrapping my head around ranking short films or cartoon shorts. If a “flick” or “film” is like 7 minutes long, comparing it to a feature length movie hurts my head. True, there are some movies that I find so disagreeable that I could rank any given Bugs Bunny cartoon higher without a thought. But most movies have so much more content in them to consider compared to a short film. I’ll rank any feature length movie, whether TV, Direct-to-Video, or Theatrical. But shorts are too much of a hassle.
I also have trouble rating any documentary that has an agenda or is informational. I’ll rank the ones that just show people doing their thing (like Grey Gardens, for example) but not anything pushing a political agenda or that is primarily about teaching the viewer something. If the documentary presents facts in order to allow the viewer to make up his/her own mind, that’s one thing, but I don’t want to be told how to interpret the facts.
And I’m avoiding wrestling videos entirely.
Personally, I feel the addition of documentaries and short films to be a good one. For example, a Pixar short like “Lifted” is easily funnier than 90% of any full-length comedy I see, and would never hesitate in ranking it above, say Hangover, which is another really good comedy.
I think taking it too far would be to add individual tv-series and episodes. I’ve seen that on other movie sites like icheckmovies.com where users add whatever they like.
I think if you can find the movie/flick/short on imdb, you should be able to rank it here on flickchart as well.
It’s definitely been an interesting issue. The gray area also includes extended format documentaries or dramas that have only had TV presentations and video releases (things like Ken Burns documentaries, or HBO’s Band of Brothers).
Ideally, we’ll have a separate TV-based version of Flickchart in the future – but even then we’ll have to decide whether made-for-TV movies should be included there or not, against sitcoms and game shows.
The requirements are so arbitrary that everyone has their own thresholds, so we try our best to be inclusive rather than exclusive, where possible.
Excellent topic! I’ve shared my thoughts elsewhere, but…since you brought it up…
As far as I’m concerned, theatrical release is entirely irrelevant in evaluating film. After all, I in all likelihood will only ever see the film in question at home as I don’t make it to the theater nearly as much as I’d like. I’m constantly discovering older movies, too; what difference does it make whether The Cowboy and the Lady ran in theaters in 1938 if I wasn’t there to see it that way?
I do appreciate the pecking order, that direct-to-video releases are second-class citizens in the film world. The logic being that if a studio had any confidence in the movie, it would have at least merited a winter release to theaters. But then, in 1997 Warner Bros. released Batman & Robin to theaters and Batman & Mr. Freeze in SubZero direct to video. I’m pretty sure most Bat-fans agree that the animated feature was much stronger than the live action movie.
Regarding documentaries, I laugh whenever I see someone object to “agendas.” Every movie has an agenda because every one of them originates with someone who is trying to influence the way you perceive the world, even if all you thought was happening was Moe slapping Larry and Curly. Documentaries are a personal favorite genre of mine, as I’m fascinated by human experiences. Unlike other films, documentaries depict real life. I may disagree with the interpretation of that depiction, but to dismiss the entire film out of hand? I can’t imagine doing such a thing.
Regarding short films, I struggle with ranking them head-to-head against full length features but I’m thrilled that they’re included. To my mind, short films are comparable to silent films; they operate with different constraints than do full-length features. Short films are bound by their abbreviated run times, which generally means that there’s little fat to be trimmed from the final product. You wouldn’t guess it from a guy who has Lawrence of Arabia as his #1 film, but I adore short films for the precise reason that they remain focused. (There have been more than a few blockbusters in recent years that could have used a good editor; there’s simply no reason that the last two Pirates of the Caribbean sequels should have been nearly as bloated as they were.)
The point of film is to tell a story, not to give us conveniently scheduled blocks of time to spend. There are many stories that simply don’t require 90-120 minutes to be told, and I for one applaud those filmmakers who can use 5-40 minutes and still weave complete yarns. Pixar’s short films are fantastic, and every one of them has clearly told a story in its entirety. Surely we’re not going to take it upon ourselves to start determining how complete a story “should be?”
Lastly, regarding performance features, these can be dicey. The Criterion Collection has released a collection of Beastie Boys music videos, as well as the Monterey Pop Music Festival, so there’s that to consider. I don’t have a clear answer here, other than to say that as long as it’s an actual performance (stand-up or concert) presented in full I’m inclined to accept it as a film; if it’s obviously been structured for television broadcast (i.e., commercial breaks were obviously inserted) then I personally would reject it. But that’s me speaking as a Flickcharter ranking movies; my personal opinion is obviously not part of official policy around here!
@Travis McClain
There’s a difference between a movie telling a story a certain way and a documentary manipulating actual real life events. If I’m watching a documentary that doesn’t just present facts but purposely and obviously skews them, that’s a whole lot different than a fictional movie presenting the story a certain way. I only rate documentaries that tell a story with real events, but don’t deliberately take liberty with the facts. I don’t “dismiss” them. I just don’t rate them with other movies.
Let’s take a movie like “Shenmue: The Movie”. It had a limited theatrical release in Japan, had a standalone DVD release, and is feature length with a compelling story.
But it uses footage and gameplay of the video game “Shenmue” for the film.
Does that make it any less of a movie than the Made for TV Movie Serial “It”? I would hope not.
Unconventional or not, they are still movies.
@KingofPain – I fear I may have come across as a bit snottier than I’d intended with my remarks, and if I upset you I do apologize. That said, I would respectfully argue that it’s a misguided notion to believe that there are, in fact, any stories that present “just the facts” as Joe Friday might say. Every story makes choices about its heroes and villains, what to depict and what to exclude. To expect a documentary to be comprehensive is unrealistic. Whatever the topic, there’s no way a single film can present everything there is to be known about it.
Of course the facts are presented in a specific light; few would find them interesting otherwise, and in any event the purpose is not to merely inform, but to present an argument. You have to understand this about documentaries, or you’ll go mad looking for cold, calculating objectivity that not only doesn’t exist, but is unreasonable to expect. Anyone who has ever written a college research paper knows all about being forced to omit interesting and worthwhile information because it didn’t fit the scope of the final product.
Viewers of documentaries should explore the material further to get a fuller understanding of the topic; relying on one interpretation of facts is woefully insufficient. When evaluating a specific film, though, I think it’s best to defer to Ebert who argued that, “…a movie isn’t good or bad based on its politics. It’s usually good or bad for other reasons, though you might agree or disagree with its politics.”
The way I see it, in the case of writing a research paper, there’s choosing to leave out information for the sake of space and staying on topic AND there’s deliberately leaving out information that you know disproves or weakens your argument. Or, even worse, adding incorrect (or out of context) information for the sake of strengthening your argument.
I understand that a documentary cannot include everything, but what it does choose to include (or not include) matters. I like documentaries about people, because I can at least view them as interesting “characters”. I don’t necessarily evaluate a documentary based on its politics, but I know that people often skew facts to make a point. If someone makes a movie for the purpose of influencing my opinion, it better be honest and thorough. That’s why documentaries are always in danger of being propaganda. I think it is reasonable to expect information to be accurate and objective, so I don’t like documentaries that stress a point of view. It’s better just to research the topic yourself, so you can be exposed to a broader range of perspectives. Documentaries are restricted by duration and having a streamlined argument. Real life is more complex.
You know, I’m having a hard time with the shorts myself. I do love most of Pixar’s shorts more than a lot of movies, but when I’m finding “Presto” in my Top 50, I’m really starting to wonder. It really hearkens back to the days of Looney Tunes…and are those better than movies I have in my Top 100?
So, now I’m finding myself ranking them on my original account, while leaving them out of my second account, which I’m trying to make as “accurate” as possible. I don’t know.
But like Travis said: I love that they’re included.
I don’t have a problem with it. I only add “flicks” to my flickchart that I want to appear on it. I personally like the idea that the site allows for so many choices. However it might be interesting to be able to filter out everything but feature length films. . .
Rtaylor32: There is a separate “genre” filter for Short Films…
Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows barely qualifies as a film? Typical elitist response from someone that probably never even saw it.
Joe: Acknowledged. I used to watch WWF wrestling back in the late ’80s-early ’90s (guess it’s WWE now…), when I was a lot younger and it seemed a little less weird. It hasn’t appealed to me for decades now, though…
I concede your point, though, and also maintain that my point behind this article was that all of these things SHOULD be included on Flickchart.
I came on this site to catalog everything I have ever seen, and I appreciate that I have the option to include TV movies, many of which are still not listed…”seen, but unranked” sounds like a good option to me.