Any port in a storm

Rich writes:

3. This paragraph is classic condescension/wanting to make a funny:

The above two symptoms hint at the gangrene that infects Rich's entire premise: when we say "Best Picture of 2008" we are not trying to approximate "The movie released in 2008 that provided the most total pleasure to movie watchers". Proof: even if a re-release of Star Wars killed the game in terms of clitoral stimulation, we wouldn't want to give it "Best Picture" since it was made 30 years ago.

You are putting words in my blog post that aren't there and making false assumptions about what I wrote. I never explicitly said "only new releases" because I didn't realize that I had to be so rigorous in a blog post to avoid ridicule. I'm (sincerely) happy to hear your take on this stuff, but I would prefer to hear substantive disagreements.

You wish I'd put words in your blog post.

At first blush, my example -- a re-release of Star Wars winning "Best Picture" -- doesn't seem troubling. After all, you could always (as Rich suggests) add the caveat "only new releases can win Best Picture". My point, however, is that it's impossible to adequately define "new release" (for this purpose).

What about a re-release of Star Wars that included 5 new shots? Can this be considered for "Best Picture"? What about a shot for shot remake of Star Wars by another director? What about a movie that just rips off its central premise (like "The Wizard" rips off "Rain Man", as Kristen astutely points out in comments). What if a movie ripped off its main artistic technique (e.g., another movie in which time is reversed, a la Memento).

The point is that, when considering a movie for "Best Picture", you can't merely think about its intrinsic quality. Rather, you have to take into account is place in the history of movies, whether what it's trying to do has been done better (or worse) before, etc. If you don't, you'll never be able to exclude movies that, though they're pleasurable to watch, are unoriginal rip-offs of other movies.