Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
NOTE: Board emails should be working again. Information on forum upgrade and style issues.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 22 released November 17th * EXCLUSIVE * We Are Mentioned in a Book!!! Interview with Mary Guillermin on Rapture, JG & More)
Polls: 1998 (Results), DtC - Ratings (Apr 26th), Coming of Age (Apr 30th), 1933 (May 12th)
Challenges: Doubling the Canon, Animation, Middle East
Film of the Week: Moya lyubov, May nominations (Apr 30th)

New Official List Discussion

Post Reply
User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 1085
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#5321

Post by Teproc »

As much as I don't care for the "this will create new official checks" argument, I think the "but this doesn't overlap with other lists enough" argument is even stranger. The Oscars Documentary lists is just the list of what the American film industry chose as their best documentary every year, through whatever convoluted process they chose. I'm not sure why you'd need any other reason to consider it a valuable list... not saying it should be official necessarily, but I certainly don't see how the fact that the Academy has different tastes than critics would be an argument against it, on the contrary.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 6619
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#5322

Post by Onderhond »

Teproc wrote: March 10th, 2021, 7:31 am I think the "but this doesn't overlap with other lists enough" argument is even stranger.
Because many people see the a list as a source of recommendations. Having lots of overlap means few new recommendations, which is a bummer since list adoption is pretty rare.
User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 1085
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#5323

Post by Teproc »

Onderhond wrote: March 10th, 2021, 8:20 am
Teproc wrote: March 10th, 2021, 7:31 am I think the "but this doesn't overlap with other lists enough" argument is even stranger.
Because many people see the a list as a source of recommendations. Having lots of overlap means few new recommendations, which is a bummer since list adoption is pretty rare.
Pretty sure you quoted the wrong sentence there. Some lists certainly are intended as lists of recommendation (most of the critics lists), but something like a list of awards winners obviously isn't.
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 11241
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#5324

Post by sol »

I would much rather have more official lists of historically significant films - like Oscar Best Documentary - than lists of personal recommendations.

Personal recommendation lists are always bound to disappoint; stuff like awards winners, not so much so since I am watching them for their place in history rather than because some critic or institute has selected them as the best-ever.

There is also a little randomness to when it comes to recommendation lists that are or are not Official. There was a lot of debate at the time or whether to adopt the Paste or BFI Screen Guide Westerns list, whereas to me the only sensible option would be to either adopt all the Paste lists or all of the BFI Screen Guides rather than randomly picking and choosing. None of this debate or randomness is required with historically significant film lists. They have their place in history and that's enough to given them value, even though we'll always be at the mercy of the list-mods as to which become official.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 6619
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#5325

Post by Onderhond »

Teproc wrote: March 10th, 2021, 9:01 am Pretty sure you quoted the wrong sentence there. Some lists certainly are intended as lists of recommendation (most of the critics lists), but something like a list of awards winners obviously isn't.
Well sure, but this is a topic about the adoption of lists, which means lists in context of ICM.

Some people may see the "official" status as a sign of general worth, a list that "matters" in the broader sense of cinema. Personally I think this is a minority, and definitely not the main reason why most people visit the site. It's not just a database of "lists". Others will look at what value it adds to ICM and their discovery of films (by using lists to discover films). Which is why overlap is actually important.

Not that the HK film organization should take overlap into account when choosing their yearly favorite, but with only 3 or 4 lists becoming official every (half)year, it does matter for the people who use ICM as a source of inspiration.
User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 1085
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#5326

Post by Teproc »

I think you're conflating the idea of "mattering" with the notion of recommendation, or "quality". A film that won the best documentary Oscar matters because it was judged by the American film industry at the time to be the most outstanding example of documentary filmmaking in America, not because someone now is likely or not to think it's good. I think lists should be judged on their own merit, not on whether or not they add official checks. Either the list brings something valuable or it doesn't. I generally think the idea of official v unofficial films is way overstated, I think most people use the site by looking at lists for inspiration, not going "oh, well this is on five more lists than this other films, it must be better."
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 6619
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#5327

Post by Onderhond »

Teproc wrote: March 10th, 2021, 10:30 am I generally think the idea of official v unofficial films is way overstated, I think most people use the site by looking at lists for inspiration, not going "oh, well this is on five more lists than this other films, it must be better."
I don't think the number of official lists is very decisive, but I do think official vs unofficial is. And what good is a list full of films that are already official? It means you could get that exact inspiration from other lists on the site, so in that sense a new official list adds nothing.

I don't share your definition and value of "matters" though. What the American film industry thinks is effectively worthless to me, or at least not more worthy than what any other regular Joe thinks. If what they think is great overlaps with what others have already pushed as great, it's just fluff to me. The only value that is left then is that it could serve as an entry point for (relative) newcomers. Which many people on this forum aren't, hence the notion of "overlap" and why it matters to some here :)
User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 1085
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#5328

Post by Teproc »

I mean, you may not share the tastes of the American film industry, but it is the most influential and dominant film industry in the world, and has been since the 40s. So I'm not sure what to tell you if you don't think their taste is relevant.

As for what good a list of film is if all the films are already official... again, I think lists should be judged on their own merit. Whether films on it are official or not is irrelevant. A good example is the recent discussion around the Leonard Maltin list: what makes that list's value is Maltin's place in culture of critical writing about film, not whether or not the list brings unofficial checks, which it doesn't.

Now, I'm definitely receptive to the argument that there are uncovered areas that would benefit from greater coverage (contemporary Asian films being the big one bandied about currently, but there are of course many others), but I don't believe in the corollary that anything that's "already covered" is irrelevant.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 6619
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#5329

Post by Onderhond »

Teproc wrote: March 10th, 2021, 12:00 pm As for what good a list of film is if all the films are already official... again, I think lists should be judged on their own merit.
It's not that I'm saying you can't or shouldn't. It's a perfectly valid way to look at official lists. I'm merely stating that others don't share that vision and use ICM with different goals. There is no real right or wrong here (unless ICM comes out and makes a definite statement about what it wants to be, but even then you'll have users who'll use the site for their own benefits).

I don't know who Leonard Maltin is and his list being official means very little to me. The way I look at ICM is that there are 210 spots and what each official list contributes to my exploration of cinema. If Maltin picked 100 films that are already covered by other lists, his list is effectively meaningless to me. People with a stronger awareness and interest in cinematic history will see this differently and will consider the official status of his list as a reflection on the person.

You'll find both perspectives on ICM, I'm just trying to explain the one that's different from yours :)
Straka
Posts: 382
Joined: June 20th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#5330

Post by Straka »

xianjiro wrote: March 9th, 2021, 9:41 pm
Fergenaprido wrote: March 9th, 2021, 9:14 pm
TSPDT's 21st Century - 111/1001 (11%)
ICM Forum 500<400 - 63/500 (13%)
ICM Most Favorited - 19/250 (8%) - I thought this would be higher, actually
Doubling the Canon - 136/1100 (12%)
CineTropical Latin America 2000s - 33/125 (26%)
CineTropical Latin America 2010s - 61/229 (27%)
xianjiro wrote: March 9th, 2021, 9:07 pm Has anyone tried to count the docus on the 21st Century list?
Haha, was thinking the same thing. Didn't have to count - filters do wonders (when the tags are accurate, mind you).
Thanks! I'll admit those numbers are better than I expected. I need to see some more LatAm docus :thumbsup:
Make sure not to forget to watch the Chilean docs:

"CineChile's 50 Best Chilean Movies of All Time" scores 18/62 (29%)
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 9285
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#5331

Post by xianjiro »

Teproc wrote: March 10th, 2021, 10:30 am I think you're conflating the idea of "mattering" with the notion of recommendation, or "quality". A film that won the best documentary Oscar matters because it was judged by the American film industry at the time to be the most outstanding example of documentary filmmaking in America, not because someone now is likely or not to think it's good. I think lists should be judged on their own merit, not on whether or not they add official checks. Either the list brings something valuable or it doesn't. I generally think the idea of official v unofficial films is way overstated, I think most people use the site by looking at lists for inspiration, not going "oh, well this is on five more lists than this other films, it must be better."
a couple general areas of disagreement: I don't believe making any list official that has 80%+ overlap with an existing list would likely be additive to the site. While I do get there are some users who work through official checks by number of official checks, I don't see it as a worthwhile policy to add lists just to increase such numbers. (And do we need reminding this is NOT a current goal when examining lists for official status?)

I do personally find value in lists that bring new titles to official status. For example, if we were to add another "Best of French Cinema" style list, I'd hope it would shine light on films that have currently gone unnoticed - relatively speaking given the structure of iCM - rather than just telling us, once again, kinophiles and critics love La règle du jeu or Les enfants du paradis since this isn't a "revelation". If, however, the Cesar Award wasn't official or we came across a French society of film historians pick or best ten of the year, there might be value either in new additions to the (gasp) "canon" or it might shine a different light on films already in the canon. However that would need to be evaluated on a list by list basis and might be a lower priority than, say, an updated comedy list or a Colombian or Thai list. (Unfortunately, our current structure makes it much easier to evaluate a Colombian list than a Thai list since the language (and writing system) is much less of a barrier.)

Now, all that written, I do agree that the list of Oscar documentary winners is of value for reasons stated by you and others. I'm just not sure 1) that we're anywhere near agreement on what need we're trying to fill and 2) what would best address this need. I'm also pretty sure that we could shine more light on non-American and non-English language documentaries. We read complaints about Chinese blockbusters and Bollywood musical romantic comedies sneaking into Top 250 or the box office list, but when was the last time we watched a Chinese or Indian documentary, especially one made in the last decade?

I'm also not sure we know enough about how users actually use the site to do much more than speculate as I feel you have done but then again, one user's "inspiration" is another's perspiration. How many users are actively working lists towards a goal? I'm not saying that inspiration isn't found, but can say it's not how I think of lists though I lay no claim to knowing how others approach lists, official and unofficial. I think we lose sight in these discussions of how many users are simply using the site to record their watches - they aren't members of this forum, they don't care about country or aggregate critic lists. Just compare the number of comments on a throwaway like Kick-Ass 2 (no official lists) with Les enfants du paradis (20 official lists) 26:14. Checks? 9,313:4,232. Les enfants isn't exactly a slouch by any means, but clearly few are getting inspired to watch Kick-Ass 2 because of iCM, thus my assertion that more people use the site as a record than for other purposes we spend time debating in these threads.
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 4413
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#5332

Post by flavo5000 »

xianjiro wrote: March 10th, 2021, 7:27 pm
I do personally find value in lists that bring new titles to official status. For example, if we were to add another "Best of French Cinema" style list, I'd hope it would shine light on films that have currently gone unnoticed - relatively speaking given the structure of iCM - rather than just telling us, once again, kinophiles and critics love La règle du jeu or Les enfants du paradis since this isn't a "revelation".
This is actually the reason I think it'd be worthwhile to adopt Sleazoid Express as a grindhouse list in addition to the current one instead of replacing it. While there is some overlap, both lists have important films of the grindhouse era that the other doesn't, making them both relevant in the context of the time period and sub-genres they are trying to cover. Ditto for that Strange Cinema list vs. Certified Weird.
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 9285
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#5333

Post by xianjiro »

Straka wrote: March 10th, 2021, 7:10 pm
xianjiro wrote: March 9th, 2021, 9:41 pm
Fergenaprido wrote: March 9th, 2021, 9:14 pm
TSPDT's 21st Century - 111/1001 (11%)
ICM Forum 500<400 - 63/500 (13%)
ICM Most Favorited - 19/250 (8%) - I thought this would be higher, actually
Doubling the Canon - 136/1100 (12%)
CineTropical Latin America 2000s - 33/125 (26%)
CineTropical Latin America 2010s - 61/229 (27%)


Haha, was thinking the same thing. Didn't have to count - filters do wonders (when the tags are accurate, mind you).
Thanks! I'll admit those numbers are better than I expected. I need to see some more LatAm docus :thumbsup:
Make sure not to forget to watch the Chilean docs:

"CineChile's 50 Best Chilean Movies of All Time" scores 18/62 (29%)
I will! That is, if I can get a hold of them. My experience is between my library and Netflix, I'm much more likely to find Spanish language films that are from this century, maybe even the last decade, so I've focused more on the most recent CineTropical list - plus I think that site is a bit more focused on getting Latin American cinema into the North American market, thus they are more likely to be in circulation here.

Additionally, since my long-term goal is bronze on every official list (and a few unofficials that interest me), I do tend to put more effort into lists were I'm less than 10 watches away from that goal (currently Empire Russia and Kinema Junpo), not that it matters much beyond expressing how I use iCM as it relates to our current discussion.

It does appear that of my 21 checks on CineChile, 9 are documentaries, so I'm already halfway! I get an imaginary bronze on ChileDocus! Woohoo! :woot:
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 1368
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Location: FL
Contact:

#5334

Post by kongs_speech »

flavo5000 wrote: March 10th, 2021, 7:40 pm
xianjiro wrote: March 10th, 2021, 7:27 pm
I do personally find value in lists that bring new titles to official status. For example, if we were to add another "Best of French Cinema" style list, I'd hope it would shine light on films that have currently gone unnoticed - relatively speaking given the structure of iCM - rather than just telling us, once again, kinophiles and critics love La règle du jeu or Les enfants du paradis since this isn't a "revelation".
This is actually the reason I think it'd be worthwhile to adopt Sleazoid Express as a grindhouse list in addition to the current one instead of replacing it. While there is some overlap, both lists have important films of the grindhouse era that the other doesn't, making them both relevant in the context of the time period and sub-genres they are trying to cover. Ditto for that Strange Cinema list vs. Certified Weird.
I could definitely get behind that. I think Sleazoid Express is such a cool list.
🏳️‍⚧️
Quartoxuma wrote: A deeply human, life-affirming disgusting check whore.
Image
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 4413
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#5335

Post by flavo5000 »

kongs_speech wrote: March 10th, 2021, 8:13 pm
flavo5000 wrote: March 10th, 2021, 7:40 pm
xianjiro wrote: March 10th, 2021, 7:27 pm
I do personally find value in lists that bring new titles to official status. For example, if we were to add another "Best of French Cinema" style list, I'd hope it would shine light on films that have currently gone unnoticed - relatively speaking given the structure of iCM - rather than just telling us, once again, kinophiles and critics love La règle du jeu or Les enfants du paradis since this isn't a "revelation".
This is actually the reason I think it'd be worthwhile to adopt Sleazoid Express as a grindhouse list in addition to the current one instead of replacing it. While there is some overlap, both lists have important films of the grindhouse era that the other doesn't, making them both relevant in the context of the time period and sub-genres they are trying to cover. Ditto for that Strange Cinema list vs. Certified Weird.
I could definitely get behind that. I think Sleazoid Express is such a cool list.
It's a really interesting book too primarily written by Bill Landis who's considered THE guy on grindhouse knowledge. He has so many little details about what it was like to actually go to see movies in Times Square back then. And then book is basically organized into chapters focused around a specific theater and the types of films it specialized in as a way to explore each sub-genre. So like the chapter on The Globe tackles roughies which were popular at that theater, gory horror at the Rialto, eurosleaze at The Liberty and The Cinerama, etc.
User avatar
zuma
Donator
Posts: 2218
Joined: June 14th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

#5336

Post by zuma »

xianjiro wrote: March 10th, 2021, 7:27 pm
How many users are actively working lists towards a goal? I'm not saying that inspiration isn't found, but can say it's not how I think of lists though I lay no claim to knowing how others approach lists, official and unofficial. I think we lose sight in these discussions of how many users are simply using the site to record their watches - they aren't members of this forum, they don't care about country or aggregate critic lists.
While I agree we have no way of knowing the common user, I think anyone who uses ICM at this point is using it to track progress on lists they are interested in. There are numerous other sites with better search engines, visual appeal, platform adaptability, and usability to simply record films watched.

If it were not for the lists I am interested in, I would never use the site. The unique cross tracking of notable list feature is what drew me in.
User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3362
Joined: July 27th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#5337

Post by WalterNeff »

I think it's time to remind everyone that the only reason lists are official is to provide a mechanism for rankings and awards. The fact that some lists may be culturally significant or historically significant or discovery-worthy or whatever criteria you like to heap on the lists is secondary.

You may now respond with walls of text.
User avatar
Knaldskalle
Moderator
Posts: 10338
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: New Mexico, USA
Contact:

#5338

Post by Knaldskalle »

The system for how documentaries are nominated for Oscars was changed after Ebert & Siskel (and others) called out the Academy for how messed up the process was after it came out that Hoop Dreams (which Ebert named his movie of the decade!) had been blackballed by some of the people on the selection committee and therefore not only did not win an Oscar but wasn't even nominated.
ImageImageImageImage

Please don't hurt yourself, talk to someone.
Straka
Posts: 382
Joined: June 20th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#5339

Post by Straka »

xianjiro wrote: March 10th, 2021, 7:48 pm
Straka wrote: March 10th, 2021, 7:10 pm
xianjiro wrote: March 9th, 2021, 9:41 pm

Thanks! I'll admit those numbers are better than I expected. I need to see some more LatAm docus :thumbsup:
Make sure not to forget to watch the Chilean docs:

"CineChile's 50 Best Chilean Movies of All Time" scores 18/62 (29%)
I will! That is, if I can get a hold of them. My experience is between my library and Netflix, I'm much more likely to find Spanish language films that are from this century, maybe even the last decade, so I've focused more on the most recent CineTropical list - plus I think that site is a bit more focused on getting Latin American cinema into the North American market, thus they are more likely to be in circulation here.

Additionally, since my long-term goal is bronze on every official list (and a few unofficials that interest me), I do tend to put more effort into lists were I'm less than 10 watches away from that goal (currently Empire Russia and Kinema Junpo), not that it matters much beyond expressing how I use iCM as it relates to our current discussion.

It does appear that of my 21 checks on CineChile, 9 are documentaries, so I'm already halfway! I get an imaginary bronze on ChileDocus! Woohoo! :woot:
I would recommend the docs by Perut & Osnovikoff. They have three on the CineChile list and one on CinemaTropical.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2714
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#5340

Post by Torgo »

Knaldskalle wrote: March 11th, 2021, 2:29 pm The system for how documentaries are nominated for Oscars was changed after Ebert & Siskel (and others) called out the Academy for how messed up the process was after it came out that Hoop Dreams (which Ebert named his movie of the decade!) had been blackballed by some of the people on the selection committee and therefore not only did not win an Oscar but wasn't even nominated.
Short paragraph about that incident on Wikipedia, btw.

[edit]ed for text so people don't have to click on the link:
Spoiler
When the film, along with the equally acclaimed Crumb a year later, was not nominated in the Best Documentary category of the Academy Awards, public outcry led to a revised nomination process in the category, led by Oscar-winning documentarian Barbara Kopple.[7] According to an angry Roger Ebert, reliable sources said members of the Academy's documentary nomination committee had a system in which one would wave a flashlight on screen when they gave up on the film. When a majority of the lights flashed, the film was turned off. Hoop Dreams did not even make it to 20 minutes.[38] Siskel, while also objecting to Hoop Dreams being passed by for the nomination, said that it led to more widespread media coverage of the film.[39]

Bruce Davis, the Academy's executive director, took the unprecedented step of asking accounting firm Price Waterhouse to turn over the complete results of the voting, in which members of the committee had rated each of the 63 eligible documentaries on a scale of zero to ten. "What I found," said Davis, "is that a small group of members gave zeros to every single film except the five they wanted to see nominated. And they gave tens to those five, which completely skewed the voting. There was one film that received more scores of ten than any other, but it was not nominated. It also got zeros from those few voters, and that was enough to push it to sixth place."[40]
Last edited by Torgo on March 12th, 2021, 3:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
blocho
Donator
Posts: 4575
Joined: July 20th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#5341

Post by blocho »

And that's the problem with strategic voting.
User avatar
Lakigigar
Posts: 1949
Joined: October 31st, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

#5342

Post by Lakigigar »

Well, i didn't know people out of such a perceived professional place could be THAT unprofessional. Also, I hope that people realize that strategic voting is just unnecessary.
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 11241
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#5343

Post by sol »

I have a hard time believing that the Documentary voters are were any more unprofessional than voters in any other Academy branch. The process was flawed; at least it has been changed now, whereas the Foreign Language Film process is still flawed, and that category is being recognised fivefold on iCM. And with some of the earlier winners and suspect missing nominations (Bette Davis being a write-in vote for Of Human Bondage) etc., I'd say that there have been flaws in the Academy voting process in all categories from the very start.

That said, the Oscars are still part of film history, like it or not. And it just seems weird for the list-mods to pick and choose which parts of the history they wish to recognise. Are all of the foreign language film nominations and all of the Cinematography winners really that much more significant than the Documentary winners?

I really hope that iCM eventually get around to adopting Oscar Best Documentary. The interest is there for it as they have proved in public polling, and it really just feels like it makes sense - certainly highlighting a greater range of films than the Cinematography Oscar winners (for example) do.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
Knaldskalle
Moderator
Posts: 10338
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: New Mexico, USA
Contact:

#5344

Post by Knaldskalle »

sol wrote: March 13th, 2021, 9:30 am That said, the Oscars are still part of film history, like it or not. And it just seems weird for the list-mods to pick and choose which parts of the history they wish to recognise. Are all of the foreign language film nominations and all of the Cinematography winners really that much more significant than the Documentary winners?
I could be wrong, but I do seem to remember all the Oscar lists being adopted prior to the mod system being put in place. So it's not really "picking and choosing" if the mods haven't gone anywhere near it, is it? I think the attitude of the mods is that there are enough Oscar lists as it is and they'd rather focus on something else.
ImageImageImageImage

Please don't hurt yourself, talk to someone.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2714
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#5345

Post by Torgo »

To be honest, while cinematography is an aspect and Oscar category I personally regard highly, it's a quite weird choice for the 3rd and only included category besides Best Picture and International Feature (two I absolutely understand and would include both for winners + nominees). You'd really expect Best Doc and probably the winners for best performances (Male & Female) before including that. Other people might argue, "Why camera and not directing or writing? Those are so much more important to films!" and how would you argue against that (except that, as far as I am concerned, BP + directing often go together, huh?).
Nathan Treadway
Donator
Posts: 4457
Joined: June 26th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Springfield, MO, USA
Contact:

#5346

Post by Nathan Treadway »

How about we just unadopt the Cinematography and the Foreign winners and just make this official? Then everyone will be happy, mainly me, because nobody on Icheckmovies has seen more on that list than I have. :lol:
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 6619
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#5347

Post by Onderhond »

Not me, the less Oscar crap on ICM the better.
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 9285
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#5348

Post by xianjiro »

Nathan Treadway wrote: March 13th, 2021, 6:23 pm How about we just unadopt the Cinematography and the Foreign winners and just make this official? Then everyone will be happy, mainly me, because nobody on Icheckmovies has seen more on that list than I have. :lol:
lol - you know you've got my vote! :lol: I'm only about 230 checks behind you in this race.
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 4026
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#5349

Post by Ebbywebby »

The glut of Oscar-related lists is really annoying. Every Oscar-nominated film is on a pile of extra, overlapping lists, because there are "Complete Oscar Nominees" lists, "Oscar Nominees from Year XXXX" lists, "Oscar Winners in Category X," "Oscar Nominees in Category X," lists, etc. etc. And then some such lists are even shared by more than one person, making double redundancy.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2714
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#5350

Post by Torgo »

Mister, this is the "New Official List Discussion" thread, not personal lists discussion ..
:whistling:

Yeah, those are.. not always satisfactory to scroll through.
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 11241
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#5351

Post by sol »

Knaldskalle wrote: March 13th, 2021, 4:16 pm
sol wrote: March 13th, 2021, 9:30 am That said, the Oscars are still part of film history, like it or not. And it just seems weird for the list-mods to pick and choose which parts of the history they wish to recognise. Are all of the foreign language film nominations and all of the Cinematography winners really that much more significant than the Documentary winners?
I could be wrong, but I do seem to remember all the Oscar lists being adopted prior to the mod system being put in place. So it's not really "picking and choosing" if the mods haven't gone anywhere near it, is it? I think the attitude of the mods is that there are enough Oscar lists as it is and they'd rather focus on something else.
That might be true (I also don't know) but the list-mods certainly have the power to remove and change lists. I honestly think that the simplest solution is just to adopt Best Documentary since it won't disenfranchise anybody working on the other lists, but removing Official status from Cinematography and Foreign Language Nominations would be another way to provide some balance as to which Oscar lists are and are not Official. I'm generally dead-against unadopting lists, but if there is no appetite from the list-mods to adopt Best Documentary despite it doing so well in the polls, this would be another way forward.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2714
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#5353

Post by Torgo »

dirty_score wrote: March 14th, 2021, 6:02 pm I know it's biased towards Disney/Pixar but let's not forget animation:

Academy Award for Best Animated Feature
Academy Award Cartoons & Animated Shorts
Academy Award Animated Short and Feature Winners
The winners for Animated Short also seem to be biased towards birds:
1957: Birds Anonymous
1959: Moonbird
1969: It's Tough to Be a Bird
1971: The Crunch Bird
2000: For the Birds

:D .. this makes me smile.

Imo, the animated feature winners are just way too safe and hardly someone takes them serious due to this. With the "foreign" category, there's enormous competition, many surprises, a huge honor for many of the filmmakers to be nominated there. Animated features are just "yeah well whatever the most popular thing that year was, here you have your metal boi".
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 4026
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#5354

Post by Ebbywebby »

Torgo wrote: March 15th, 2021, 12:16 am
The winners for Animated Short also seem to be biased towards birds:
1957: Birds Anonymous
1959: Moonbird
1969: It's Tough to Be a Bird
1971: The Crunch Bird
2000: For the Birds

:D .. this makes me smile.

Imo, the animated feature winners are just way too safe and hardly someone takes them serious due to this. With the "foreign" category, there's enormous competition, many surprises, a huge honor for many of the filmmakers to be nominated there. Animated features are just "yeah well whatever the most popular thing that year was, here you have your metal boi".
You forgot....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_(film)
User avatar
dirty_score
Posts: 549
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#5355

Post by dirty_score »

Ebbywebby wrote: March 15th, 2021, 12:30 am
Torgo wrote: March 15th, 2021, 12:16 am
The winners for Animated Short also seem to be biased towards birds:
1957: Birds Anonymous
1959: Moonbird
1969: It's Tough to Be a Bird
1971: The Crunch Bird
2000: For the Birds

:D .. this makes me smile.
You forgot....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_(film)

and Tweetie Pie for that matter.

Torgo wrote: March 15th, 2021, 12:16 am Imo, the animated feature winners are just way too safe and hardly someone takes them serious due to this. With the "foreign" category, there's enormous competition, many surprises, a huge honor for many of the filmmakers to be nominated there. Animated features are just "yeah well whatever the most popular thing that year was, here you have your metal boi".

I agree, but then there's also Annecy Festival - Cristal du long metrage (Best feature Film) that offers a different approach than the Oscars. A second Annecy list wouldn't hurt.
User avatar
dirty_score
Posts: 549
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#5356

Post by dirty_score »

Before your next movie night, get a nerd girl's perspective. In A Nerd Girl's Guide to Cinema, lifelong movie geek Kelly Cozy offers her insights on 200 cult classics, overlooked gems, and interesting failures — from All That Jazz to Zabriskie Point, and from the sublime to the ridiculous (and everywhere in between). You'll want to keep this guide handy when you load up your DVD queue or streaming list.
Kelly Cozy's A Nerd Girl's Guide to Cinema
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2714
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#5357

Post by Torgo »

dirty_score wrote: March 17th, 2021, 4:07 pm
Before your next movie night, get a nerd girl's perspective.
Having scrolled through the list .. is the perspective really that different? /shrugs
User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 1085
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#5358

Post by Teproc »

Torgo wrote: March 17th, 2021, 4:11 pm
dirty_score wrote: March 17th, 2021, 4:07 pm
Before your next movie night, get a nerd girl's perspective.
Having scrolled through the list .. is the perspective really that different? /shrugs
Well, it's a book, so presumably the interested would be in, you know, reading it.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2714
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#5359

Post by Torgo »

:unsure: That's a point. As an ICMer, I was naturally only focusing on the selection of the list itself. Alright then.
User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 633
Joined: May 3rd, 2013, 6:00 am
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#5360

Post by Harco »

joachimt wrote: March 3rd, 2021, 6:00 am
Harco wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 9:43 pm
joachimt wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 8:30 pm
My message to BOM worked. It's gone from the list.
:mellow: What a weird bug, though.

Can you perhaps ask them if they can fix the worldwide totals for
Notting Hill and The World Is Not Enough? They seem to listen to you. :whistling:

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0125439/
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0143145/
Will do
These two have finally been fixed, so they should reappear on the list with the next update. :wub: :wub:

The Other Guys (2010) and The Specialist (1994) will drop off. Avatar will reclaim the number one spot due to its China re-release.
:ICM: | :letbxd:
Post Reply