It is a slippery slope. I don't think are really many more if any situations like this that could arise during a 90s draft. So I think it is probably best to leave this in the grey area.

sorry, but you're completely wrong. They were meant to these parts of a whole from the beginning. sorry if you don't agree.

But those movies ARE supposed to be a small part of a bigger whole. Not just sequels made to cash in on a film's popularity.

Bourne would qualify.
Die Hard would not.

I'm not sure what's so hard about seeing the difference.

i don't disagree with that; it is just three different stories and three different movies

It is true that thematically similar is vague, but to be able to pick the movies there's extra criteria.

counting sequels that move the story along as part of a whole is really silly as well

if a movie is filmed at once and released in increment(s), like Kill/Bill, LOTR & Matrix sequels, it can be picked as one systemic film. this was solved in the 2000s draft.

if you have a problem with that, take a bong hit and remember this is just a friendly way to bring up / discuss our favorite movies of the 90s

People itt do realize that you don't get any actual rights to these movies once you draft them, right? Arguing over it like this is sorta silly imo.

And Red > Blue >>>> White

What???? SCAME

obviously...but I love how they all tie in together

Debating is part of the fun.

You are basically saying if the story is continuous it is 1 movie OR if the story purposefully explores multiple narratives but has an overall continuous theme it is 1 movie. All I am saying is that if you are going to establish what qualifies as one movie for drafting purposes - the characteristics you defined are way to broad.

I don't have a problem with any of the movies drafted being counted as one movie though.

After the draft (or first round) or whatever, I'd like to see the participants fill in a spreadsheet with where they think each 1st round pick actually deserved to go. Perhaps we could also include the 2nd round. With these results we can organize the movies selected into a weighted draft. I'm probably not explaining this correctly; I hope someone understands what I mean.

If Godfather three had came out in say 1976 vs the 90s - I would say if we were doing a 70s draft you could take all 3 with one pick. Key word is Saga? They were a single book after all I think.

Star Wars? If the original trilogy count as one Jedi will presumably be ineligible for the 1980s draft. (Not that it would necessarily be drafted.) Or we could say all six count as one and render it undraftable!

that just seems to diminish the fun of the draft imo would have been much more simple letting 1 person draft 1 movie and that's it.

If I were moderating the draft, then yes the Dekolog would be one pick. And I'd definitely include Godfather I and II together - in fact, we did that in the Arts & Humanities draft.

alright enough bitching

I had this movie along with pulp fiction and unforgiven as my fovorite films of the 1990's and as you can see the other two have already been drafted so the decision is quite basic for me, and honestly, i think even if i had the number one pick i would have chosen this movie anyways, i love it...


my #1 pick is...

doesn't make sense to me to lump distinctly different movies as one, but whatever

will go grab a pizza and hopefully when i get back, it will be on me to make a pick

Rushmore is an awesome pick.

It is going to only lead to debate to nitpick over which movies can be counted as a singular movie in a draft - I say if someone makes a pick you think is unfair or ineligible, tough ****.

I was confident Rushmore would slip. I actually had it on my draft board for my 57th or 59th picks. Damn. I guess personally I think it is a reach, but man I wanted to be able to snag it. So maybe I undervalued it. Very entertaining movie.

You picked the wrong Wes Anderson movie.

No he didn't ainec. I do like undrafted too though.

My First round Pick:

Trois Coleurs: Bleu, Blanc, Rouge, Krystof Kieslowski, 1993-94





This masterpiece of film by Polish director Kieslowski tackles, on the surface, the meaning of the French flag's colors: Blue (for liberty), White (for equality) and Red (for fraternity).

This is obvious in how Blue is about Julie's "freedom" from her family; in how White is about Karol gaining "equality" with his wife; and in how Red is about Valentine showing The Judge how to be part of the "fraternity" of the human race again.

Each film has a different cinematographer, because Kieslowski wanted a different look for each film. Each film is represented by its title color throughout and each color dominates each film's color palate.

Kieslowski also explores the concepts of fate and free-will, and if we can really know which force we are truly under. Watch for the old lady trying to recycle the glass bottles in each film - she is representative of how each main character sees themselves and the world in general. In Blue, Julie is so wrapped up in her own life, she all but ignores the old lady. In White, Karol is amused to see someone in a worse-off situation than himself. And in Red, Valentine finally helps the old lady, as a reflection of how she sees her role in the world.



In Blue, we see Karol and Dominique from White as bit players in a court room. In White, we see Julie from Blue - from a different angle - as a bit player in the same court-room drama. And in Red, we see the four main protagonists from the previous two films turn up at the very end of the film - along with Valentine and the Judge.

We are all the stars of our own movies - but we are also supporting characters, walk-ons and extras in everybody else's personal movies of their lives.