Perhaps everybody here feels certain movies have no right to exist on this website. Without even having endured their inevitable crapness, I can’t see why garbage like “Sex and the City” Parts 1 and 2 would be here. Yeah, I know MUBI is a work in progress, but what can you say about a site that has either dragged its feet in inducting or still omits countless gems from Australia—but hurries to include “Sex and The City” films? The “Twilight” films also stand out on this site like Reverend Fred Nile at the Mardi Gras. So if you could wave your magic wand and remove five (and only five!) films from this site, which ones would they be and why?
Removing any film is the antithesis to the spirit of this site. Every movie every member can think of should be added. That includes your Australian gems, but also crap movies. That one star option is there for a reason. I have no idea how the order of approvals is determined, but it should be in roughly the same order they’re entered.
Brad, this is just to give people an idea which films they feel really don’t fit the MUBI tradition, and why those films don’t belong. It can be as frivolous or as serious as you wish it to be.
I think any and all movies should be on here, just like imdb
Another pointless thread but there is one correct thing here: why should Sex and the City and Twilight and other crapfests get a priority addition when half of what I’ve submitted in the last few months is still “unnoticed”?
I’ll agree once again with Den and others feeling this database should be as objective as possible BUT….I cannot stand bias attitudes…and sorry to Grey and anyone else who’s trying to convince me the opposite…but I find it peculiar these bullshit films seem to be “magically” added out of the blue before lesser-known films.
Well, Dimitris, you’ve just contradicted yourself by (a) posting on a “pointless” thread and (b) pretty much agreeing with the spirit of things. Think about it for a moment: so many new movies are being pumped out from countries scattered on every corner of the globe (globes have corners?), that there is no reason why films like “Twilight” and “Sex and the City” could not be held off forever from this site.
Say this site adds a maximum of 100 movies per month. There must be AT LEAST 100 films of feature length (for the sake of the exercise, longer than 50 minutes; it varies from country to country) of some quality and interest released to cinema per month. I’m sure people submit, like you said, Dimitris, many films that are still backed up in the queue. We could add 100 films per month on this site from now until forever without having to induct “Twilight” films, there are literally thousands of films from the past 100 years (and certainly from the past 70-80) still waiting to be brought to MUBI, so no, it’s not a pointless thread.
Besides, does ANYTHING have a point…in this website…in this world? Hell, people, let’s have some FUN with this thread!
Anyone got bozophobia?
It’s this sort of elitist, pretentious claptrap that makes me hate this website sometimes.
a semi persuasive and eloquent defender of mainstream film ( because after all mr vanselow has only really ever talked about high end 1960s and 70s hollywood) has decided to adopt susan sontag’s mantel? ( i did not know that twilight was on this site, i suppose that is because i did not look for it!)
well I, for one, did not know that Vanselow was Bozosexual.
so I at least learned something from this thread.
200: A Space Odyssey
Singin’ in the Rain
the tall guy (1989)
clutch of power (1977)
dancehall queen (1997)
to live and die in tsim sha tsui (1994)
hey the magic wand really works :O)
That’s right. Dmitris contradicted himself in his face and I don’t know how he didn’t notice it.
And again, this thread and the idea behind it are literally ‘movie racism’. Think about that and tell me otherwise.
-find it peculiar these bullshit films seem to be “magically” added out of the blue before lesser-known films-
This sight isn’t monological, so if Mark is asking which films don’t conform to the logic, one has to impose an external logic on the database—“art film,” “mainstream film,” “great film,” “canonical film,” etc. If you look at the “recently added” films, though, I see a fair amount of “lesser-known films” (along with Eastwood’s Space Cowboys). I see no particularly good reason to whack any given five rather than any other given five.
Can i remove 5 members instead?
I just knew Berjuan always hated me. Damn!
You guys are like those people who complain about violent or sexual content on television. “I was so horrified I couldn’t even change the channel!”
If you don’t like violence on TV, change the channel. If you don’t like crappy films about teenage vampires who use hair gel, don’t watch them. The whole outrage that any bad film that happens to be popular should ever dirty our hallowed website is extremely snobby.
Well, I think this thread is supposed to just be fun or something. It’s just another way of saying “what are the five worst movies?”
That being said, if I had a serious problem with any stupid film being on here I’d just cancel my account and start my own site which would probable only have 500 titles in the database with all the rest not being allowed until given my holy approval.
Why remove films? It takes a lot of time to put this stuff up. I think that time could be better employed on more interesting movies, but why backpedal?
uh-oh! Somewhere a certain esteemed forum member has just felt a great disturbance in the grammer and usage Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.
I don’t know who you’re talking about Matt, nor do I know why you decided to fabricate a false grammatical error in my text. I don’t see where I had typed “alot” ‘en lieu et place’ of “a lot.”
…………….every corner of the globe. (Globes have corners?)
– What a beautiful phrase!
– If that’s not a Groucho Marx line, sell it to him!
I agree with Dimitris. Yes the removal of films could be considered counterproductive, but should not the the members of this site be more discerning? There are enough forums and and web pages devoted to the mainstream, why give them the adspace? I hear the defense often that such films serve as examples of the mainstream and such. They are added so that you know what is in the mainstream? I am sorry, but that is stupidity. Those with access to this site are aware of the mainstream and that is why, I would hope, they choose to participate in MUBI. We know the crap out there, lets find what else there is. I have high hopes for the growth of this site, but these, what I see as compromises, continue and it now becomes a bastardized form of itself.
It comes down to identity, we all make our identity through exclusion; male against female, East against West and so on. Foucault refers to this as “regimes of power” there is no identity aprt from exclusion. Elitist? No, just exclusiory.
Whose identity are we talking about? There are at least two distinct camps that regularly make their appearance here-“we have to keep out the riffraff” versus “let everything in.”
I think it is disingenuous to say that your position is not elitist. I don’t believe that anyone develops a preference for anything with a conviction that their choice is inferior to the alternatives. The primary difference in these two positions is that the inclusionists are willing to concede the possibility that their choices may not be superior, or believe that there is no objective superiority.
In the end, this is just a website for people who are interested in writing about and reading about movies. No particular training or expertise is required to participate. I would rather see more participation rather than less, and I think it’s great when someone clues me in to a movie that I was unaware of, or gives an insight into or suggests another way of looking at a movie that I’m interested in. I hope that I occasionally might do the same for someone else, whether it’s a Twilight fan or someone who thinks Kubrick walked on water.
Nothing personal against you. I looked at your favorites, and while I could dispute a few, there is nothing there that I wouldn’t enjoy watching or watching again.
Only on MUBI could my harmless attempt at fun been dissected so anally by a bunch o’ killjoys.
If you think I only talk about “high end 1960s and 1970s Hollywood”, you must also think the cast of “Twilight” was robbed at Oscar time.
Look at my posts regarding current German film stars, “Daisies”, Australian cinema, et cetera. Also, I would say I talk quite a lot about 1980s cinema as well as cult favourites and Walerian Borowczyk films, some praise for Lina Wertmüllerm, et cetera. That’s hardly just “high end 1960s and 1970s Hollywood cinema”.
“Twilight” being on this site is common knowledge.
“Why remove films? It takes a lot of time to put this stuff up. I think that time could be better employed on more interesting movies, but why backpedal?”
Well, yeah, the thread is another way of saying which films shouldn’t have been put up here in the first place. It’s also designed for fun.
“Movie racism”? No, if I hated every single film made by an African American, BECAUSE it was made by an African American, that would be a form of racism.
I would ask you, Stunner, to consult the word “literally” in the dictionary.
And you have to understand, Stunner, Dimmy is an angry fellow who thinks Greeks had the idea for cinema stolen by the Lumiere Brothers in a daring covert hot air balloon operation, one foggy evening sometime during the late 19th century.
That’s MISTER Vanselow to you and one day I really would like to get it on with a woman dressed like a clown.
I think female mimes are especially yummy. I understand exactly why Anthony Quinn was hot for Federico Fellini’s missus in “La Strada”.
By the way, if you ever went down on a clown, do you reckon it would taste funny?
The whole “if you don’t like violence on television, change the channel” mentality is intellectually spurious.
It’s a throwaway line that doesn’t really require much thought on the part of the person making the statement, similar to when people say “if God didn’t want people to eat animals, he wouldn’t have made them out of meat”, or yelling “Get a job!” at protesters.
Are you saying ANYTHING should be allowed on television, Jirin? Think good and hard about that before answering. Maybe they could have a 24/7 “snuff” channel and nobody would complain. Also, I think what disturbs people is the fact nothing is sacred these days and networks will exploit any crap for the almighty dollar. Check out the Paddy Chayefsky interview on Youtube where he talks about his film “Network” and the thinking behind it.
Oh, by the way Jirin, if you don’t like this thread…
Erm, what happened to your “if you don’t like it, don’t watch it” mentality?
That’s not a Groucho line, it’s a Mark Vanselow line.
Transformers and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
‘movie racism’ isn’t a difficult concept to grasp. one thinks a certain number of movies is inferior to others, and those inferior ones should be offered less, and many times should be offered nothing; that i call movie racism. replace the word “movies” for, for example, black people, and you have racism. to dislike african-american cinema because it’s made by african-americans is just racism and nothing to do with movies. and the word “literally” isn’t there just cuz; the idea behind this thread (for fun or not) is, literally, in a strick sense, actually, ‘movie racism’.
I wouldn’t want any films erased from the page. We all have our guilty pleasures and every film deserves a second evaluation/chance/viewing.
I also have nothing against the Sex and The City or Twilight films being on here and don’t understand why people still make a big deal about Twilight (I don’t mean you, Mark) Many way more awful films are on here and with all the crappy action films that are on here; we need some crappy romance films to balance things out before people accuse us of being a geeky boys club.
If I had to erase a film it would be Joshua (2007) – I hate that film for personal reasons.
Talking about how one identifies one’s self, that identity. I am male, not female. I live on earth, not mars. And to follow the terms within the MUBI paradigm, I like films, not movies. Ororama from your position you make it seem as if you stand outside of these two groups you label. Yet those who are all inclusive are more elitist than I. Everything deserves a second look, we should not exclude anything. If that is not “elitist” I know not what is. I prefer not fall prey to illusions of inclusion.
My favorites, perhaps, are not up to par by “elitist’s” standards or whatever, but these I own and sit and watch while I work, relax, and sleep. I am a selfish viewer, I like that which I see myself in.