digitaldreamdoor.com forum

I don't care too much about Birdman's position either way tbh. Point taken on B&tB, Man.

Dubrow555 wrote: Thu Jan 22, 2026 6:28 pm Why do you keep picking on Birdman? We've already established its' placement months/years ago and we've already established as a forum that it is influential.

Do you have any specific counterarguments to my breakdowns? Sure, its place on the list is established, but that's a fairly weak argument when our goal is literally to revise a list that was previously established.

For a film in contention for being one of the top 500 films of all time, its lasting acclaim (with both critics and audiences), lasting popularity, initial popularity are all pretty subpar.

In terms of influence, sure it was a resurgence for Michael Keaton's career, but it's not like he was some huge star for the next few years. It was a step up for Inarritu, but he was already a very well established director and, on top of that, he only really made one significant film since Birdman. In terms of the 'all-in-one take' thing, Birdman clearly inspired 1917 at least, but it was hardly the first film, or even the first mainstream film, to do that. The film is influential, but I don't think it's uncharitable to describe influencing 1917, getting Michael Keaton cast in a couple more movies, and somewhat increasing the hype for The Revenant as fairly minor.

My counterargument is: we have already decided these things as a group/forum - while you want the list shaped to your desire.

Tim was adding films that have recently been released, and sliding out the bottom films from the list (which is fine). While also making fairly minor changes throughout the list.

You are saying: "Let's remove a film from the list entirely because I say so" - and that's annoying.

Dubrow555 wrote: Thu Jan 22, 2026 8:33 pm My counterargument is: we have already decided these things as a group/forum - while you want the list shaped to your desire.

Tim was adding films that have recently been released, and sliding out the bottom films from the list (which is fine). While also making fairly minor changes throughout the list.

You are saying: "Let's remove a film from the list entirely because I say so" - and that's annoying.

It's not 'because I say so', though. I posted breakdowns that explain why I feel Birdman shouldn't be on the list and if you have an argument, using the criteria, that shows that Birdman is at least comparable to those films I mentioned, go right ahead.

In terms of comparing my suggestions to Tim's, I'd say that the changes I proposed are fairly minor anyway as well. Moving a film from #442 to outside the top 500 is hardly an overhaul of the list.

So that means "The Tree of Life" is next on the chopping block...right?

I'd say there was nothing wrong with how Man approached the Birdman debate (finding entries near the bottom of the list which seemingly do better than it by criteria, finding other 2010s movies as replacements for it to keep the list balanced between the decades) although I guess he has a history with trying to remove it. Well, if he wants to, he might attempt arguing for Tree of Life's removal as well, but iirc it had it's defenders such as pauldrach.

Just to quickly chime in. Dubrow, there is nothing wrong with people making objective arguments, for which films to add or remove. There is a problem however, with people saying only "It's agreed upon." without countering objective arguments in an objective manner. If you think Birdman's place is apt, please counter MP's points by proving that his application of the criteria is somehow flawed.

Weird how all the times I've used the criteria and they are considered "nitpicks" - but when MP uses it, it's considered Gospel.

For what it's worth, Oppenheimer only wins popularity against Birdman.

Well, Oppenheimer's popularity win is pretty big and it also excels in industry acclaim just like Birdman. I'd agree with Man that Birdman's influence isn't that big in a grand scheme of things even if it has more than Oppenheimer.

Dubrow555 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 8:25 am Weird how all the times I've used the criteria and they are considered "nitpicks" - but when MP uses it, it's considered Gospel.

I don't think all of ManPerson's suggestions get implemented either. Sorry if I came across as dismissive in the past, Dubrow.

Tim wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 11:12 am

Dubrow555 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 8:25 am Weird how all the times I've used the criteria and they are considered "nitpicks" - but when MP uses it, it's considered Gospel.

I don't think all of ManPerson's suggestions get implemented either.

If they did, Shrek and Iron Man would be on this list, Halloween would be in the top 75, and there would only be one 2010s film in the top 200.

Tim wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 11:12 am

Dubrow555 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 8:25 am Weird how all the times I've used the criteria and they are considered "nitpicks" - but when MP uses it, it's considered Gospel.

I don't think all of ManPerson's suggestions get implemented either. Sorry if I came across as dismissive in the past, Dubrow.

Thank you for saying that. I think I am going back to when we were assembling the top 500 list - and I used the criteria to suggest that two back-to-back Pixar movies should be switched - but that was dismissed for being too "nitpicking." I found it a bit frustrating when MP recently suggested that Spielberg be moved up (a whopping) 2 slots on the directors list, and in my head I was like.....okay??

But - I feel like the criteria is a lot more "by the book" in recent years on this forum for these lists, so I can be more respectful of that.

ManPerson wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 5:29 pm

Tim wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 11:12 am

Dubrow555 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 8:25 am Weird how all the times I've used the criteria and they are considered "nitpicks" - but when MP uses it, it's considered Gospel.

I don't think all of ManPerson's suggestions get implemented either.

If they did, Shrek and Iron Man would be on this list, Halloween would be in the top 75, and there would only be one 2010s film in the top 200.

True, and I would imagine Avengers would be higher as well...ha.

Dubrow555 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 6:30 pm

Tim wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 11:12 am

Dubrow555 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 8:25 am Weird how all the times I've used the criteria and they are considered "nitpicks" - but when MP uses it, it's considered Gospel.

I don't think all of ManPerson's suggestions get implemented either. Sorry if I came across as dismissive in the past, Dubrow.

Thank you for saying that. I think I am going back to when we were assembling the top 500 list - and I used the criteria to suggest that two back-to-back Pixar movies should be switched - but that was dismissed for being too "nitpicking." I found it a bit frustrating when MP recently suggested that Spielberg be moved up (a whopping) 2 slots on the directors list, and in my head I was like.....okay??

But - I feel like the criteria is a lot more "by the book" in recent years on this forum for these lists, so I can be more respectful of that.

I'd agree such a move would feel nitpicky as well unless it's a part of the larger revision but Spielberg is in higher region of the directors list than Toy Story 3 and Up (I assume you talking about them) are on the movies list so you can argue it's not quite 1:1.