1. "A lot of people think that the American Film Institute should shut up already with the lists, and they have a point: an ordered list of the "100 greatest" anything is bound to be so subjective as not to be worth much, especially when it's not clear why the people compiling the list should be seen as authorities"

I think the list is stupid too, but come on, how could you possibly write that on this site? You guys do "Cinematical Seven" lists all the time and one could say the exact same thing of you guys. It's pretty hypocritical.

Posted at 5:16PM on Jun 18th 2008 by Slappy

2. Can't speak for my co-bloggers, but when I do Sevens I try to be pretty explicit about the "one guy's opinion" aspect of it. And so the lists I make are worthwhile to the extent you find it worthwhile to read my opinion on something -- just like a year-end top ten, say. I (we?) don't make claims like: "AFI’s 10 TOP 10 will serve as the ultimate guide to the very best in 10 of America’s most
beloved film genres." (from the AFI press release) So I'd distinguish the two, but point taken.

Posted at 5:22PM on Jun 18th 2008 by Eugene Novikov

3. I'm just saying, not one week ago your very own headline proclaimed "The Best Superhero (and Villain) Casting." Come on man. That's actually MORE subjective coming from one person than coming from a body of voters such as AFI (anyone can join the AFI, people from all over the place are members), and a panel of top members select the nominating lists, so there's at least a variety of different people's input going in to them.

That said though, I agree with the message of the original post, AFI's lists are really weak and tired at this point. But as I stated in other comment postings lately (on the article announcing the new layout), I think you guys overdo Cinematical Seven to an extreme. It's one of the weaker features on the site. Far moreso than AFI is guilty of. There doesn't need to be a list for everything! Take some of your own advice :P

Posted at 5:31PM on Jun 18th 2008 by slappy

4. If my headline had said "favorite" instead of "best," would that have been better?

Let me put it another way. If Roger Ebert, or A.O. Scott, or Scott Weinberg, or Slappy were to make a list of his 10 favorite movies in 10 genres, that would be a lot more valuable to me than the dumb AFI lists. That, at least, would be a window into someone's feelings and tastes; you can take it in the context of other things that person has said; he can defend his picks, change his mind, etc. That means something to the extent you care what that person has to say. The AFI's stupid popularity contests mean nothing.

Again though, point taken on the Cinematical Sevens. It's not the most revolutionary concept, though we try to at least be thoughtful in our commentary. But if it's not working, it's not working.

Posted at 5:40PM on Jun 18th 2008 by Eugene Novikov

5. I don't know, I like lists -- I don't mind them so much, except when they put Napoleon Dynamite ahead of BTTF (holds fist in air at EW!).

Normally, we run two Cinematical Sevens a week and readers seem to enjoy them. Who doesn't love a great debate? We try to cover a wide range of different topics and I always have a good time reading what our writers come up with. As I say with everything we do, if it's not your cup of tea, there's plenty of other stuff to read. As you've most certainly noticed about us, we're constantly evolving and trying out new things. Try to have fun with it.

Posted at 5:38PM on Jun 18th 2008 by Erik Davis

6. Debates are good, I agree.

But I was pointing out that the complaint in the article was a hypocritical one coming from somebody who just made his own "Best" movie list less than a week ago. That's all. Calling them "Favorite" titles or whatever is another thing but Eugene was complaining about something he had JUST done himself the other day, and in even MORE a subjective manner than AFI. I couldn't resist pointing it out.

I still think you guys run lists so much that it becomes as dull as stale matzo, but it's your site. Slightly less frequency wouldn't hurt, at all. Some of them are pretty good though.

Posted at 5:47PM on Jun 18th 2008 by Slappy

7. "Let me put it another way. If Roger Ebert, or A.O. Scott, or Scott Weinberg, or Slappy were to make a list of his 10 favorite movies in 10 genres, that would be a lot more valuable to me than the dumb AFI lists. That, at least, would be a window into someone's feelings and tastes; you can take it in the context of other things that person has said; he can defend his picks, change his mind, etc. That means something to the extent you care what that person has to say. The AFI's stupid popularity contests mean nothing. "

But if you're going to complain of subjectivity, a singular point of view is as subjective as you can get. That was what I was pointing out. I know a number of people in the AFI and most of them agree that the lists are stupid, but they all do get a say in the tallies.

Again, it's more than one person having a say, therefore it's actually less subjective than one person's list.

And again, I agree with the base fact that their Top 10 10's are really stupid, especially having "Raging Bull" as the top...Sports Film? It's moronic.

I was simply disagreeing with your knocking of subjective lists when that's a major part of what you do here on this site. And I think MANY sites on the net are way too list-happy. It's not unique to Cinematical.

Posted at 5:53PM on Jun 18th 2008 by slappy

8. i watched this show last night, and have seen a few of AFI's other specials. it seems to me the afi has a strange affinity for movies made in the 1940's.

personally, i think old movies are given too much credit. "best" is not a word that should be used about almost ANY movie made in that time period. maybe "influential," but certainly not best. acting, directing, production quality have come a long way since then.

Posted at 7:15PM on Jun 18th 2008 by uforeader

9. Ah well, I stopped taking offense at those AFI lists and every other list. It just wastes time and doesn't stop AFI giving their opinion on what they think are the best movies or Entertainment Weekly or People Magazine from making their own moronic 'Most Beautiful' lists. A waste of breath and effort to get mad at everyone thinking their opinion should matter to me or you. My movie collection doesn't have movies from any list, it has movies I like and think are good. No Schindler's List, no Raging Bull, plenty of Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers movies. I hope all you folks have a movie collection full of movies you like and not from some snooty list.

Posted at 12:04AM on Jun 19th 2008 by Gilbert Davis

10. The plus part of these lists is that they can remind you of films that you want to watch; the minus part is that they tend to become repetitive and boring. A great thing about the Cinematical Seven is that it can bring up oddball themes, say, 7 good movies that use catch phrases as their titles.

Posted at 8:48AM on Jun 19th 2008 by ML

11. Maybe I could have named the top three gangster films in order if they had been accurate.

The Godfather
The Godfather: Part II
Scarface

(Even if Goodfellas was third, Part II should still be second.)

Posted at 3:08PM on Jun 19th 2008 by Jonathan Kuhn

12. Maybe I could have named the top three gangster films in order if they had been accurate.

The Godfather
The Godfather: Part II
Scarface

(Even if Goodfellas was third, Part II should still be second.)

Posted at 3:08PM on Jun 19th 2008 by Jonathan Kuhn

13. How'd I get roped into this? ;-)

Posted at 10:41PM on Jun 19th 2008 by Scott Weinberg

14. Oh, and I'd like to interject one quick thing: The fun of writing (and hopefully reading) the Cine-7s lies in the text of the thing, not in a general list of movie titles.

Posted at 10:44PM on Jun 19th 2008 by Scott Weinberg