The MoFo Top 100 of the 1970s: Countdown

It does seem weird to me that they just decide to post right now. But who cares really.

I think it's very possible that someone could be sneaky and make an alternate account and never post on it and use it to send in a second list.

I say make it a rule that you also need to post here a couple of times, too, before you can send in a list. I mean, the list should reflect OUR tastes. Us MoFos. Our clan. And people who join but don't post... don't seem like our clan to me. It becomes more about just trying to get as many lists as possible than actually trying to make the lists about our tastes. People who join the site but don't post don't seem like US yet to me. I wouldn't call someone with zero posts a MOFO. There needs to be more initiation, I feel.

Well, I think that's too bad for them. They should POST. I would discriminate against lurkers for this kind of thing. They might as well be people who never joined in the first place.

I've waxed and waned with SNF over the years. Like many, it was just that John Travolta dances to The Bee Gees film when I was a kid. As I got older I appreciated it more and more and up until about 10 years ago it would've been a lock for my list. Maybe even my 100. However, it started to annoy me a little and the last time I saw it was about six years ago and, while I was into it, I tired with it towards the end.

I saw The Tenant once and struggled to stay interested in it, but I was in my late teens when I saw it. I don't know how I'd feel now. Given it's Polanski and expect the same (I either like his films or I don't) but as I liked Rosemary's Baby more the last time I saw it than I did the first time I saw it, it's possible I might like this more, too.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Not sure why. It was on five ballots, and four of them had it top ten--so the one that wasn't top ten was Norman Desmond.

Well, I vetted Norman Desmond because it's somebody I know from another board (or Facebook page, actually). I invited him to come and take part, since there is overlap there of a couple MoFos (or people who used to post) and I wanted to get a robust number and variety of film tastes. I don't think he's just me, pretending to be somebody else. Though I suppose I can't be sure, either, if I'm actually schizophrenic?

Either way, great way to welcome him. Very encouraging.

But I must say, I do love Sexy conspiracy theories. They are all kinds of fun. They should get their own thread. Get on that, Man!

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Well, Holden said that the fifth was in 22nd place, which is further off from what Norman said than one of the 10th places

__________________
Mubi

It's not like if someone made an alternative account that they couldn't make a few posts as well to fool everyone. I was here for five years before posting, so maybe I'm someone's alternative account, someone tricky enough to know five years in advance there would be this 70s countdown. Or maybe this is just a ruse, and it's really to tip the favor for some film in the 60s countdown. Hmm....

Besides I thought we were all alternative accounts of Sexy's...?

__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.

Well, the 60s is a showdown between Psycho and 2001

Ah yes, I misread that and thought he was talking about the other film.

Hopefully Holden can clear up the discrepancy. I guess the simplest explanation is that Normand hit "11" instead of "22."

He did in the post above.

I don't care. It should be made a rule that you should also have to post at least 10 times or something before you're allowed to submit a list. I don't care if he or she is your friend. You're not a MoFo, I say, until you actually post here. Not lurk.

This whole thing just opens possibilities for shenanigans. Holden could have submitted a second list. Someone else could have. I am not doing a conspiracy theory about this, BUT, I think it's very possible that someone could have done something to get in a second list or whatever. I don't think even the admin and mods and Holden are above being sneaky at times.

I think Norman Desmond may have simply mistyped. He's one of the two voters who had it as their number ten choice. For the sake of clearing it up, it is WBadger who had Jeanne Dielman as their number twenty-two choice.

I shouldn't do this, but what's a MoFo decade list without a little controversy, right?

I'm just going to blast a little fire into the discussion just before I'm leaving to watch a film, so I have some lecture to read afterwards:

Norman Bates join date: 6-17-14
Deadline: 7-15-14
Start of the list: 7-16-14

Rule:

"New members can send in a list as soon as they've been a member here for one month. This measure is taken so that the list isn't jerry-rigged by people who have been here for a week, and then disappear."

----------------------------------------------------

Holden is the creator of this list and he's doing an AMAZING job, so I think his judgement should always prevail over that tiny rule that he could've easily deleted himself (and I think practically every sane MoFo will agree with me on that), but I'm just posting this to see Sexy's head explode.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

If I was going to put my thumb on the scale, it sure wouldn't be to get Jeanne Dielman on the list. But I appreciate the implication.

If the next person who runs a list wants to make it a rule that you have to have a minimum number of posts as well as a minimum amount of time here, gosh bless. I, for one, think it's a good way to get lurkers, those people who may come here to read regularly but are too shy to post for whatever reason or haven't posted in a long time, to participate. But then, that's not what Sexy says, so it's probably not correct.

I private messaged many people who I saw on the board, whether they had hundreds of posts or just a handful, and told them they were very welcome to participate, that their votes count as much as anybody's. See, I was being inclusive and welcoming. You should try it sometime. It's fun!

Sexy doesn't like shenanigans? Since when? Move this post to another thread if necessary.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

That is kind of weird, seeing how I remember someone else being turned away who actually did post ( can't remember the name, but he's a rather eager mofo). Clearly with the stated rules Normand did not qualify for a list.

Anyways, I'm done talking about it like Cobpyth.

That's all very nice and well for people who post and I don't mind that. But people who've never posted at all? If you can't even bother to use your fingers and type here ONCE, who says you have fingers and who says you're a person who should count? Yes, I call for a little more restriction next time.

I say if you are too shy, GOODBYE.

'Tis true. I don't want to be the one to break this news to everybody, but months have differing amounts of days. The 15th to the 15th may be "one month", but if you go back four weeks from the July 15th, 2014 deadline, June 17th, 2014 is exactly four weeks, to the day. Four Tuesdays apart.

But that could simply be a semantic thing about what "a month" means to you? If you are counting the number of days or just the general chunks of time on our calendars? I took it to mean twenty-eight days, exactly four weeks (which is how I was counting it down in the other thread). Again, if the next person who runs a list wants to make it the other interpretation of "one month", meaning you have to match the same number whether that is thirty days or whatever, that's up to them.

That one I am actually happy to clear up.