New Official List Discussion

[kongs_speech]

No, but is there a need to included multiple films of each director?

Look at the list again and you'll see it's really not an introductory list. The introduction of the list even mentions "hidden gems". There's no point coining it that way, so I don't think there's much point discussing that aspect of the list

It's not like they were sitting at a table discussing how many Miyazaki films to include. It was a poll. 2 Miyazaki films got enough votes, so 2 Miyazaki films made the list.

It's an introduction in the sense that it's a non-overwhelming size (100), and includes essential films from a variety of countries. There's no rule that says an introduction can't include any hidden gems. If you're trying to make a list that covers all of Asia, then you have to include hidden gems, because some of those countries don't have any well-known films.

Well said. I won't lie, I'm feeling a little motivated to platinum this list sooner than later just out of spite.

[WalterNeff]

I'm curious what you think the point of official lists is, Onderhond? A hint: the goal is not to give you, specifically, official checks so you can rise up in the rankings.

Actually, that's the only purpose of official lists. The entire ranking/award ecosystem of iCM wouldn't exist without the concept of official lists. The concept of iCM as a holy shrine of curated lists came with the third or fourth generation of iCM power users.

Every list that gets debated can be on iCM as a personal list. If I were interested in a genre or country or award/festival, I'd probably use the Google to find the list and add it as a personal list, except that I am a check whore and I like the gamification aspect of iCM. I can curate my own personal interests. I realize that my approach may not be the approach of many others, but I believe it is truer to the original mission of iCM.

[Panunzio]

It brings something new in the sense that it'll be the only official list which is a general introduction to Asian cinema, but if you're talking about new official checks, then it doesn't bring much new.

Ah yes, for the truly lazy among us!

I'm actually very grateful for this list. I want to explore the basics of Asian cinema, so this list is a hell of a lot less intimidating than the Vicks one. I can understand hardcore Asian cinephiles wanting a list that goes deeper, but this is great for novices and should be a fairly attainable platinum for anyone willing to invest the time.

This. I would go out on a limb to say that the vast majority of the site's users (myself included) haven't finished this list, and would still be able to use it as a nice handy guide for an entry-level exploration of Asian cinema, with the Tom Vick list providing some more depth for those looking to explore certain regions in greater depth.

The whole point of lists is to make it easy to discover films. No one wants to spend hours browsing a list of 4000 films trying to figure out which ones are Asian. Especially not someone who's looking for an introduction.

The list includes both well known and lesser known films, just like I would expect from any country or region list. BIFF also covers 20 different countries, something that you wouldn't get from watching the top 100 Asian films on the most official lists.

Also this. I hardly feel it's redundant. It just highlights many of the canonical titles and helps to elevate them in terms of visibility.

[xianjiro]

No, it's not replacing the Tom Vick list.

It brings something new in the sense that it'll be the only official list which is a general introduction to Asian cinema, but if you're talking about new official checks, then it doesn't bring much new.

And yes, I think I would have preferred to work this before the Vick list. Not going to be difficult to get Gold if it doesn't happen at adoption, but otherwise yes. It's a good choice for the site.

[xianjiro]

I get that you're disappointed, but that's unnecessarily rude to those of us who don't live and breathe Asian cinema.

If you're truly interesting in Asian cinema, you don't need this list at all, unless, like I stated earlier, you're lazy and don't want to make any effort.

Couldn't you say the same thing about any list? If you're truly interested in anime, you don't need Paste. If you're truly interested in HK cinema, you don't need LoveHKFilm. If you're truly interested in modern Japanese cinema, you don't need Mark Schilling.

But what people need and what people find useful isn't the same thing.

You know what they say, "Real men don't need lists!" They just go out there and dig through all the romcoms and action blockbusters until they find those uncutknown gems.

I've also been told they don't eat quiche, but who gives a toss.

[monk-time]

You know what they say, "Real men don't need lists!" They just go out there and dig through all the romcoms and action blockbusters until they find those uncutknown gems.

DAMN RIGHT. If you were a true cinephile you wouldn't have to rely on handouts like movie lists that tell you what to watch and how to think. Heck, back in my day we had to dig out hidden gems from indie video store trash bins with nothing but a shovel made out of a plastic VHS case and crumbled Spielberg laserdiscs glued together. Once we even held up a Philippine retrospective! With that same shovel! Now that's what I call dedication. Kids these days just want everything handed out to them in a neat list on a silver platter with a slice of pineapple on top. Pffft. Sure, go ahead, be a Big List sockpuppet, see how that works out for ya.

[Onderhond]

(And not for the regular Joe, but the typical ICM crowd, which we know you like to derogate.)

The irony is that I think higher of the ICM crowd than a list like this seem to suggest others do. It caters to an extreme cinephile cliché that pigeonholes film fans as showcasing a very limited interest in anything but mainstream arthouse cinema.

I'm curious what you think the point of official lists is, Onderhond?

Lammetje can probably cast some light on this, but I feel we had this discussion before. The point of official lists is to get films on people's watchlists. And looking at our Top 1000, it works too, which is why I don't really appreciate this extra bit of navel gazing.

I have spoken against the gamification interests of picking lists before and even if you wouldn't believe that, I barely get bronze of the BIFF list, so if I really cared about rising through the ranks I wouldn't object against this list.

But in what sense would a more comprehensive list achieve anything more, by your own logic, since people can already find everything they need to in other ways?

That isn't my logic at all, though it's what people seem to be reading into my posts (whether that's because I didn't clearly articulate my point or whether others preferred to make a mockery out of it I'll just leave in the middle). I use ICM myself as a way to plug gaps in my knowledge about film, so it would be silly for me to speak against the usefulness of official lists, wouldn't it?

I'm also not advocating for a more comprehensive list, I'm merely trying to figure out what purpose this list serves (and why it has a higher priority that trying to cover areas that have near-zero coverage right now). Clearly it's not a deep-dive lists, and the combined list of official movies on ICM already offers more than enough entry-level Asian films for those who care about that. And even should it be about curation, the BIFF list does a terrible job as it merely caters to a very singular audience, namely people looking for festival/arthouse favorites. To peg that as "an introduction into Asian cinema" is simply insulting.

If you're trying to make a list that covers all of Asia

Sounds to me like this was the main reason for picking the list, the rest is just poorly constructed narrative. Yes, it offers a wide variety of countries. If that's your measure of diversity, great job.

[St. Gloede]

I think it is important to recognize iCheckMovies is not (solely) catered to hardcore and experienced cinephiles - far from it.

Over time, the core users, the donators, etc. have been able to get several lists that cater to them rather than starters, and perhaps even skewered the available lists, but this is a website that still does top 50s based on the ratings from IMDb. It is attempting to be for everyone, regardless of level.

If there was not an easy, accessible list to Asian cinema already in place, that is a clear oversight and has now been corrected. This list will now get added exposure, and people may choose to go through the films on it to explore Asian cinema further - through a specific list.

How many unofficial entries a list has is only relevant to hardcore members who are actively chasing checks, or are running out of interesting checks. This will never be the case for the majority of film buffs, most being unlikely to even complete TSPDT - as this is (though not to us) a highly specialized list.

As such, new official checks should not play a major role in list creation, regardless of how big a plus it is for people who cares about the gamified element.

I think it is also a mistake to dismiss curated lists as not being an essential part of the site mission, and that giving easy access to such lists to beginner and intermediary (and even expert cinephiles) holds value - rather than doing the research on their own.

-

As for demographics, I understand your point. While most cinephiles are into what you describe as arthouse (which is not really arthouse mind you, Mizoguchi, Kurosawa, etc. are not arthouse) - it is a "cliche" for a reason, this is the type of film most cinephiles/film buffs like, appreciate and look for - there is, of course, other notable niches and interests iCheckMovies should also try to cater to more.

[Onderhond]

but this is a website that still does top 50s based on the ratings from IMDb. It is attempting to be for everyone, regardless of level.

Then why would you choose to add an "introductory" list that only caters to the cliché film buff? Will there be introductory Asian lists added for people who prefer commercial/blockbuster cinema and for people who like genre/cult films? If so, I'll retract my reservations.

As such, new official checks should not play a major role in list creation, regardless of how big a plus it is for people who cares about the gamified element.

I really don't understand this argument. Official checks are important for visibility/discovery, more so than gamification. I agree there's a small group that cares about the gamification aspect, but I don't know why this is brought up time and time again now, as it's something I personally have rallied against before.

And that's why you're doing people who want to explore Asian cinema a disservice by passing over big parts of Asian cinema with a list like this. Since official checks are important to the average ICM user, unofficial films are way more likely to be ignored. Meaning big and important parts of Asian cinema will be completely ignored if people use this list for introductory purposes.

I think it is also a mistake to dismiss curated lists as not being an essential part of the site mission

I don't oppose curated lists, I oppose the idea of doing an "introductory" list and having it curated by a very singular panel. Who, if I can make a rough guess, didn't even intend to make an introductory lists to Asian cinema in the first place.

Again, nothing above sounds like "ICM is attempting to be for everyone", it sounds like "ICM is catering to a predominant niche already present on the site".

[St. Gloede]

but this is a website that still does top 50s based on the ratings from IMDb. It is attempting to be for everyone, regardless of level.

Then why would you choose to add an "introductory" list that only caters to the cliché film buff? Will there be introductory Asian lists added for people who prefer commercial/blockbuster cinema and for people who like genre/cult films? If so, I'll retract my reservations.

I thought I answered this already, sorry about that.

This is the main type of list you should always add as an introductory list as it is what film buffs like and are interested in. Film buff cliche, at least to me, can only be translated to the spectrum of tastes and interests that are relevant to people interested in film. Looking at the list, especially the top choices, you just see all the expected top films from the various countries, making it a great starting point.

Like I said at the end, there are other niches of course, and they should do more to cater to them - but for most film buffs, or people just interested in broadening their knowledge of Asian cinema - this seems like a great and intuitive start. I would not have complained if they say, included Woo or To (though I don't like them personally) and showcased Asian action cinema more - as that is a part of the canon - though they did include Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, A Touch of Zen, etc. (and of course, Seven Samurai is 8th).

As such, new official checks should not play a major role in list creation, regardless of how big a plus it is for people who cares about the gamified element.

I really don't understand this argument. Official checks are important for visibility/discovery, more so than gamification. I agree there's a small group that cares about the gamification aspect, but I don't know why this is brought up time and time again now, as it's something I personally have rallied against before.

And that's why you're doing people who want to explore Asian cinema a disservice by passing over big parts of Asian cinema with a list like this. Since official checks are important to the average ICM user, unofficial films are way more likely to be ignored. Meaning big and important parts of Asian cinema will be completely ignored if people use this list for introductory purposes.

I don't really see it. Official checks don't really show up unless you are either searching for a specific film (i.e. you know of it already) or you are sorting searches by official checks. Many veteran users clearly do this, but for most users, especially beginners I can't see it being relevant (beyond seeing what is on the most lists).

The service here is helping people find a clean list covering the most respected Asian films they should see.

I think it is also a mistake to dismiss curated lists as not being an essential part of the site mission

I don't oppose curated lists, I oppose the idea of doing an "introductory" list and having it curated by a very singular panel. Who, if I can make a rough guess, didn't even intend to make an introductory lists to Asian cinema in the first place.

Again, nothing above sounds like "ICM is attempting to be for everyone", it sounds like "ICM is catering to a predominant niche already present on the site".

[/quote]

It doesn't strike me as singular at all. While I agree that it could have been even more inclusive (something that can be said of almost every list) and that cult films are underrepresented - I think there is an unconscious bias on your part here (film buff cliche) where you put what film buffs like under one label. I agree, this does cover the general spectrum of what film buffs like, and as such does the job and works as an introductory list.

It is, for a lack of a better word: "film buff mainstream" and that is for "everyone", i.e. all/most film buffs. (And cult is called cult for a reason).

Are there niches that may not find much for them? Yes, absolutely - BUT: the canon is not a niche (beyond the fact that being a film buff, as a hobby, is a niche). It is the norm. I have never been on a film forum (beyond those leaning more towards arthouse) where this is not the norm - including the massive boards back in the IMDb days.

This to me seems like a fundamental misunderstand (miscommunication?) in most of these debates - where you think that our lists are the way they are because films are on toplists for instance. I don't think this is the case. There is likely an impact, as people will be getting tips from official lists and many clearly value official checks for one reason or another - be it gamification or a signal that it is liked/respected - but the overlaps between ICM and the Film Buff Mainstream is because of the enormous scope which has essentially made anything canon worthy "official". Almost all films championed as great by more than a few people, have in one way or another snuck in. There are some gaps in specific niches and geo-locations that do not have much representation in the critic, academic and community sources ICM is using - and this should be covered - but in general, almost everything you would hear about positively in most international film communities has become official.

(I don't even know how many official checks there are, but there are more than 15,214 (score of RonJensen))

And as more and more sub-niches get covered (and they should be) this gap will be filled in further and further.

[Teproc]

It's worth noting that there already are two genre-focused Asian lists, the Samurai list and the Martial Arts list. Of course, there could be many more, but I don't really see how that's an argument against the BIFF list. I guess it's the idea of new lists being limited, so this is replacing another one, but we didn't have an introductory list for critically acclaimed Asian cinema, since the Tom Vick list is a much bigger one.

[OldAle1]

Interesting discussion. My main problem with the list is simply that an introductory list - of any kind - to "Asia" strikes me as silly. More silly than an introductory list to "Europe" "North America" or "South America". Only Africa has (maybe) more cultural diversity - more languages, more religions, more diverse culture in other ways - food, literature, clothing etc - but Africa is still in it's cinematic infancy apart from Egypt. Asia on the other hand - what do Israel, Bangladesh, China and the Philippines have in common cinematically? I would argue that you would be likely to find a lot more commonalities picking a random selection of arthouse classics from Brazil, Argentina and Chile, or from Norway, Greece and Spain, then you would in a similar group of Asian films. And yeah, I kind of agree with Onderhond a little on the genre vs arthouse argument, particularly in this case - Hong Kong is a popular genre-oriented cinema as is India; Iran, not so much. I just don't see a huge amount of value in a relatively quite small list that just hits a film or two from such a huge, diverse continent.

(no I wasn't ignoring Australia when I listed the continenets, sol and mighty etc, but it's a continent-country so isn't in the same category in any meaningful way)

But as to the larger argument of wanting "introductory" lists as well as more comprehensive or deeper dives, sure, all for it. Just not sure this is one of the better examples.

[St. Gloede]

Kiwi users will get very upset with you now, OldAle.

[OldAle1]

Kiwi users will get very upset with you now, OldAle.

Fuck Peter Jackson.

[St. Gloede]

Oceania aside ( ), very good points re-Asia. The adoption is likely only due to the specific interest in Asian cinema (despite the fact that this usually translates to East Asia, which has more cinematic links).

[Onderhond]

Film buff cliche, at least to me, can only be translated to the spectrum of tastes and interests that are relevant to people interested in film.

And yet the S&S list on ICM has fewer favorites than the WW Box office list. The 366 Weird also has more than S&S (on the other hand, TSPDT outranks all of them). Still, it shows there's a clear and strong interest beyond the film buff cliché.

I've frequented quite a few different film communities throughout the years (one of the perks of not "belonging" anywhere), the biggest problem is that there's usually little cross-over so people end up living in their own bubble and believing they are the primary group of film fans. There are major film buff communities where people focus on commercial cinema or cult/genre work and don't care one bit about Zia or Weerasethakul.

It's ICM's choice whether it wants to cater to everyone, or prefers to put the film buff cliché on a pedestal, but at least be clear (and honest) about it.

I don't really see it. Official checks don't really show up unless you are either searching for a specific film (i.e. you know of it already) or you are sorting searches by official checks.

Uhm, no? Every film in every official list is an official check. So every official list used by people for film discovery is comprised of films that are official checks (and will get preference over unofficial films. All the BIFF list adds is a little focus for people who aren't willing to use ICM functionality of plough to other official lists in search of Asian cinema.

This to me seems like a fundamental misunderstand (miscommunication?) in most of these debates - where you think that our lists are the way they are because films are on toplists for instance. I don't think this is the case.

Well, there is a fundamental disagreement then. ICM (and certainly ICMf) misses vital communities of film fans (and I'm not talking small niches) and based on the decisions that are made it seems like people prefer to keep it that way. ICM isn't a very welcoming place if you're not a typical film buff, simply because you won't find people with similar tastes here (and thus, there isn't that much to talk about). And since the official lists are one of ICM's primary entry paths into the community ...

[flavo5000]

Ok, so I think a lot of this debate is probably reaching for reasons on both sides when it really boils down to this:
On one side, the root question is "why this list instead of other lists that may be more important in covering an area currently not represented in an official capacity well?"
On the other side, the root argument for its inclusion is that it serves as a cinephile introduction to Asian cinema since there isn't an easily accessible list.

And really, both sides are correct. You could argue the merits of what list should be chosen instead, or argue why this particular list of Asian films isn't the best representation of introducing someone to Asian cinema. But both sides are right to an extent. This list is fairly redundant if the sole goal is to introduce new films to official status, but also ICM doesn't have an easily accessible list of Asian films which does seem to merit existence given some folks' comments about finding such a list helpful.

What I'm trying to say is, when will we get Sleazoid Express official?

[Torgo]

Thanks for the one and final conclusion, flavo.

(It's still too long! )

[flavo5000]

Thanks for the one and final conclusion, flavo.

(It's still too long! )

I think you mean NOT LONG ENOUGH. We need a They Grind Houses Don't They Top 1000 list

[St. Gloede]

Film buff cliche, at least to me, can only be translated to the spectrum of tastes and interests that are relevant to people interested in film.

And yet the S&S list on ICM has fewer favorites than the WW Box office list. The 366 Weird also has more than S&S (on the other hand, TSPDT outranks all of them). Still, it shows there's a clear and strong interest beyond the film buff cliché.

I've frequented quite a few different film communities throughout the years (one of the perks of not "belonging" anywhere), the biggest problem is that there's usually little cross-over so people end up living in their own bubble and believing they are the primary group of film fans. There are major film buff communities where people focus on commercial cinema or cult/genre work and don't care one bit about Zia or Weerasethakul.

It's ICM's choice whether it wants to cater to everyone, or prefers to put the film buff cliché on a pedestal, but at least be clear (and honest) about it.

I think there is an odd miscommunication here as we seem to be speaking past each other.

Most of what is an official check on ICM, certainly the ones on the most lists, are examples of commercial cinema (Hollywood), and just to be clear here, even on our forum recent mainstream cinema directors like Nolan, Spielberg and even Peter Jackson, etc. have a higher standing than Jia or Weerasathakul!

Look at the recent top 1,000 and see how many new, mainstream films are in it.

When I say that all the film groups I have been to belong in this spectrum I include these kinds of large forums/groups dedicated to mainstream cinema. Yes, they may have Fight Club as their all-time favourite film - but Fight Club is an essential part of the mainstream - so is Avengers: Endgame - which is on a (not so shocking) set of 10 lists. That ties it with Jia's best-listed films btw (Still Life) and places it above all but one Weerasathakul film.

Even something like Transformers is on 4 lists.

Fans of commercial cinema, even new commercial cinema (though, IMDb and Box Office lists excluded there will be a delay in exposure) have a perfectly decent set-up - with the other lists as ways to grow their interests/explore more.

Hell, cult fans are also reasonably well-catered to, far better than the demographic I would associate myself with the most - arthouse. There are several cult specific lists, but no arthouse lists, and only one experimental list ... Luckily, the top arthouse films do get a lot of exposure through critic lists, etc. but they are far from the norm - especially among the heavily promoted films.

Obviously, if you are in a particularly small niche, the existing cult lists may not work - but hearing you speak it sounds like everything is arthouse. Kurosawa is mainstream/commercial - so is Alfred Hitchcock, etc. If we look at the films on the most lists everything is extremely mainstream. 2001 may pass for arthouse, though it is also one of the biggest blockbusters of all time - making it a rare breed. After that 8 1/2 and Andrei Rublev (and possibly Sunrise) are the only films that would qualify among the 50 films on the most lists.

-

Catering to the film buff cliche means catering to film buffs. I really don't understand what you mean when you say "be honest about it". Commercial cinema is part of the film buff mainstream and these tastes are very well catered to.

ICM really seems to be catering to most film buffs (i.e. "everyone") - though of course, most of the expert/advanced lists added will take it in a more advanced/specialized direction - and the more we add, the further away from this type of user we get. The list is discussion however is not one of these advanced lists and serves beginners well - while providing additional recommendations to more advanced viewers as well.

ICM isn't a very welcoming place if you're not a typical film buff

Exactly, but that is also my point, the smaller the niche (if even a niche) the harder it is to cater to with representative lists. I don't think this can change, and unless ICM completely changes on a fundamental level - i.e. to something closer to Criticker, predicting your taste - this is just not possible to fix.

The larger niches, i.e. horror and cult, already have several lists catering to them - and like I said, I hope ICM does more to cover even more niches and be more diverse. I also hope you get a list covering Maximalist cinema or East Asian Cult Cinema (though that is really specific) - and that anything that could be of reasonable value to enough people gets added.

I don't really see it. Official checks don't really show up unless you are either searching for a specific film (i.e. you know of it already) or you are sorting searches by official checks.

Uhm, no? Every film in every official list is an official check. So every official list used by people for film discovery is comprised of films that are official checks (and will get preference over unofficial films. All the BIFF list adds is a little focus for people who aren't willing to use ICM functionality of plough to other official lists in search of Asian cinema.

I don't understand what you mean here I'm afraid. Are you saying that rather than creating helpful lists where people can keep track of their progress, they should do the research themselves. That defeats the purpose. Unless I'm missing something I'm a little lost.

-

And yes, a "They Grind" top 1,000 would certainly be welcome. I'm sure a similar action list would too.

[St. Gloede]

Also, for a quick comparison, recent arthouse films are not doing that well either - with festival awards as the main outlet (some of the more mainstream make the 21st century list of course). As a quick case study, let's look at Radu Jude - who I may consider the best younger director working today, and who has gotten a great degree of festival buzz and critical support from the beginning of his career well over a decade and 8 films ago - did not get on a single official list until Bad Luck Banging or Loony Porn won the Golden Bear a couple of months ago.

Their only shot is really TSPDT's 21st Century list (besides the few awards handed out), which is not that different from many new blockbusters who need to rely on the blockbuster list - which means most of the festival circuit is ignored - and that's a pretty big niche in cinephilia (though not really present on this forum).

[Onderhond]

I think there is an odd miscommunication here as we seem to be speaking past each other.

Well yes. If you're going to call Kurosawa & Hitchcock mainstream, even stretching it to 2001: A Space Odyssey, then yes, we're talking about very different things.

But since we're talking about reaching out to various demographics that exist in the film fan sphere today, I think it's just flat-out strange to call these films mainstream. Core fans of contemporary mainstream cinema aren't looking forward to Criterion releasing Hitchcock films, they're looking at very different things.

I understand why you'd object against calling Hitchcock mainstream (in its day, it was top genre/commercial cross-over), but going by modern-day definitions, these film fall into the segment of the cliché film buff. Whether you want to tag that as arthouse or something else doesn't really matter to me, it's part of the main niche that ICM caters to and of very little interest to the two other big niches that ICM does very little for.

Catering to the film buff cliche means catering to film buffs.

Well, I don't agree. Or I do in fact ... but I don't agree with the reverse, which is the point I'm trying to make. Catering to the film buff cliché does not mean catering to film buffs.

I see large groups of film buffs (i.e. those with a penchant for mainstream cinema and those with a strong love for genre cinema) who don't fall under the film buff cliché. Either you never come into contact with these people or you don't consider them genuine film buffs, I don't know. There's many of them around, sadly these groups rarely mingle.

I don't understand what you mean here I'm afraid. Are you saying that rather than creating helpful lists where people can keep track of their progress, they should do the research themselves.

The only thing I'm saying is that making a film official (i.e. adding lists that introduce new films) adds visibility and discoverability to that film, which is crucial on a site like ICM. I never talked about people finding stuff on their own outside of the ICM official lists and I don't even know how that argument snuck into the conversation.

[mjf314]

I think there is an odd miscommunication here as we seem to be speaking past each other.

Well yes. If you're going to call Kurosawa & Hitchcock mainstream, even stretching it to 2001: A Space Odyssey, then yes, we're talking about very different things.

But since we're talking about reaching out to various demographics that exist in the film fan sphere today, I think it's just flat-out strange to call these films mainstream. Core fans of contemporary mainstream cinema aren't looking forward to Criterion releasing Hitchcock films, they're looking at very different things.

I understand why you'd object against calling Hitchcock mainstream (in its day, it was top genre/commercial cross-over), but going by modern-day definitions, these film fall into the segment of the cliché film buff. Whether you want to tag that as arthouse or something else doesn't really matter to me, it's part of the main niche that ICM caters to and of very little interest to the two other big niches that ICM does very little for.

It sounds to me like when you say "mainstream" you actually mean mainstream movies made in the last 10-15 years, but that's only a small part of Asian cinema. If the list had focused heavily on modern mainstream movies, it wouldn't be a good introduction to Asian cinema.

The list includes 36 films made between 2000-2014, of which some are mainstream and some are arthouse. Several genres are represented, including horror (The Host), crime/thriller (Memories of Murder, Oldboy, Mother), fantasy (Spirited Away), martial arts (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, A Touch of Zen).

[Onderhond]

Well, first of all, since it's supposed to be an introductory lists it's not really aimed at me to begin with, so I haven't really argued my case from that point of view, rather from the point this list was intended (an introductory lists for people not familiar with Asian cinema).

martial arts (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, A Touch of Zen).

So what's the takeaway here? The best martial arts films come from ... Taiwan? And I get A Touch of Zen is a cornerstone of the genre, but it's hardly representative of the genre (I would say it's even one of the worst films to begin with, seeing how low on actual martial arts it really is). It's like including Momotaro's Divine Sea Warriors as the representative for anime.

And then looking at Hong Kong, we get one of the least representative directors ... three times. Great way to know the cinema of Hong Kong. Looking at China, the list is completely oblivious about the crazy turnaround that happened there this past 20 years. Better to turn a blind eye and pick some Jia's, him being a festival favorite and all.

As an introductory list that is supposed to cater to a broad variety of film fans, it's simply an embarrassment. As a list that caters to budding festival/arthouse lovers, sure, I'll take it.

[flavo5000]

Hell, cult fans are also reasonably well-catered to, far better than the demographic I would associate myself with the most - arthouse. There are several cult specific lists, but no arthouse lists, and only one experimental list ... Luckily, the top arthouse films do get a lot of exposure through critic lists, etc. but they are far from the norm - especially among the heavily promoted films.

So in your post you do raise some valid points, although I feel like you are severely skewing a personal bias with this kind of statement. First, "arthouse" isn't a genre of film which is part of the reason there isn't a "Best Arthouse" kind of list. The definition varies wildly from person to person as the conversation going on here shows. Also I can say with some degree of certainty that there are far more arthouse films on official lists in general (depending on your definition) than something like horror with Psycho being the lone representative in the Top 50 (and some people argue wrongly that it isn't even horror). Having said that I do think horror is quite well-represented in general and doesn't really need another horror list made official any time soon.

Also I'm going to say that while we only have Anthology Film Archives as the only "official" official experimental list, Amos Vogel also has a LOT of experimental films on it as does Rosenbaum's weird list. Now if you want to get more specific and niche, the real gap is with contemporary experimental film, not experimental film in general.

Obviously, if you are in a particularly small niche, the existing cult lists may not work - but hearing you speak it sounds like everything is arthouse. Kurosawa is mainstream/commercial - so is Alfred Hitchcock, etc. If we look at the films on the most lists everything is extremely mainstream. 2001 may pass for arthouse, though it is also one of the biggest blockbusters of all time - making it a rare breed. After that 8 1/2 and Andrei Rublev (and possibly Sunrise) are the only films that would qualify among the 50 films on the most lists.

I feel like what you define as arthouse is not dissimilar to how you view "small, niche cult lists". I think there are probably subsets of arthouse you feel are not well-represented on ICM which may certainly be the case. If so, then I would encourage you to find a list that represents that niche well not unlike the lists genre fans have been suggesting. But to say that arthouse as a whole is severely under-represented is just not true. They just aren't tied to a specific kind of list. But arthouse films are found peppered throughout not just the 21st TSPST list but also all of the festival lists, the ICM 500< 400, DTC as well as most if not all the country and critics lists as well.

Honestly if you want to talk about under-representation, adult films would be by far the biggest gap, comprising one of the largest bodies of work in the industry without even a single list to represent it (and no, I'm not demanding an adult films list... just making a point).

[mjf314]

Crouching Tiger and A Touch of Zen are still considered good films by many people, and Crouching Tiger is still one of the most famous films of the genre. I don't know anyone who actually likes Momotaro's Divine Sea Warriors, so I don't agree with that analogy.

[OldAle1]

Crouching Tiger and A Touch of Zen are still considered good films by many people, and Crouching Tiger is still one of the most famous films of the genre. I don't know anyone who actually likes Momotaro's Divine Sea Warriors, so I don't agree with that analogy.

I found Touch of Zen a little underwhelming, but yeah that's an analogy that I suspect virtually nobody here would agree with. But not really surprising from Onderhond.

[Torgo]

As a list that caters to budding festival/arthouse lovers, sure, I'll take it.

Perfect!


/closesthread

[St. Gloede]

I think there is an odd miscommunication here as we seem to be speaking past each other.

Well yes. If you're going to call Kurosawa & Hitchcock mainstream, even stretching it to 2001: A Space Odyssey, then yes, we're talking about very different things.

But since we're talking about reaching out to various demographics that exist in the film fan sphere today, I think it's just flat-out strange to call these films mainstream. Core fans of contemporary mainstream cinema aren't looking forward to Criterion releasing Hitchcock films, they're looking at very different things.

I understand why you'd object against calling Hitchcock mainstream (in its day, it was top genre/commercial cross-over), but going by modern-day definitions, these film fall into the segment of the cliché film buff. Whether you want to tag that as arthouse or something else doesn't really matter to me, it's part of the main niche that ICM caters to and of very little interest to the two other big niches that ICM does very little for.

Yes, we clearly are.

Mainstream =//= Contemporary mainstream.

Maybe if we are talking about really young people's "mainstream cinema", but Hitchcock is merged into mainstream forever.

His films are on TV, all the time - everywhere. His Boxsets are always available, etc. So is 2001, which is literally the highest-grossing film of 1968 - has its music linked to space travel forever - and is practically known by all.

And we also need to talk about mainstream/commercial cinema in a timeless scale. The way it was made and intended does not change just because it falls out of favour. Random Sylvester Stallone films are still blockbusters.

Also, when you say "film buff cliche" - unless I'm missing something, it just means films people who like films may like - and as such it seems meaningless and confusing. Feel free to expand. Feels a little like it is a joke I'm not quite getting - but I see you address that below.

Catering to the film buff cliche means catering to film buffs.

Well, I don't agree. Or I do in fact ... but I don't agree with the reverse, which is the point I'm trying to make. Catering to the film buff cliché does not mean catering to film buffs.

I see large groups of film buffs (i.e. those with a penchant for mainstream cinema and those with a strong love for genre cinema) who don't fall under the film buff cliché. Either you never come into contact with these people or you don't consider them genuine film buffs, I don't know. There's many of them around, sadly these groups rarely mingle.

I think we are really speaking past each other now.

These are film buff cliches as well - otherwise I don't get it at all - and as showcased above most of ICM is mainstream - and even contemporary mainstream cinema has major outlets.

Also both these two groups are very well catered to on ICM.

All the key genres the genre groups interested in are covered well, from crime to war - even a unique gangster list, western lists, cult lists, massive horror lists, romance lists, you name it.

We also have several horror buffs here - less crime, war, etc. buffs - but these are massive demographics - of course, often with a preference for older films.

We also don't have that many classic only fans here, and those communities are massive

I don't understand what you mean here I'm afraid. Are you saying that rather than creating helpful lists where people can keep track of their progress, they should do the research themselves.

The only thing I'm saying is that making a film official (i.e. adding lists that introduce new films) adds visibility and discoverability to that film, which is crucial on a site like ICM. I never talked about people finding stuff on their own outside of the ICM official lists and I don't even know how that argument snuck into the conversation.

I don't agree.

There are so many films that are official checks, and many of them have next to no exposure. Having a random check is only relevant to people who have already seen thousands upon thousands of films and care very much for checks.

And there are plenty of unofficial lists to give films exposure as well.

However, making a list that could be interesting official is a nice way to get extra focus towards a film.

[St. Gloede]

Hell, cult fans are also reasonably well-catered to, far better than the demographic I would associate myself with the most - arthouse. There are several cult specific lists, but no arthouse lists, and only one experimental list ... Luckily, the top arthouse films do get a lot of exposure through critic lists, etc. but they are far from the norm - especially among the heavily promoted films.

So in your post you do raise some valid points, although I feel like you are severely skewing a personal bias with this kind of statement. First, "arthouse" isn't a genre of film which is part of the reason there isn't a "Best Arthouse" kind of list. The definition varies wildly from person to person as the conversation going on here shows. Also I can say with some degree of certainty that there are far more arthouse films on official lists in general (depending on your definition) than something like horror with Psycho being the lone representative in the Top 50 (and some people argue wrongly that it isn't even horror). Having said that I do think horror is quite well-represented in general and doesn't really need another horror list made official any time soon.

Also, I'm going to say that while we only have Anthology Film Archives as the only "official" official experimental list, Amos Vogel also has a LOT of experimental films on it as does Rosenbaum's weird list. Now if you want to get more specific and niche, the real gap is with contemporary experimental film, not experimental film in general.

Absolutely, I don't dismiss that at all. I was trying to allude to that with "Luckily, the top arthouse films do get a lot of exposure through critic lists, etc." by which I meant that I fully concede that it makes sense for other niches without this advantage to get their own lists - but many of these things we are discussing are not quite one thing either.

Even horror has a fair degree of nuance, for instance, Silence of the Lambs, Pan's Labyrinth, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and even The Night of the Hunter get included in horror list (all also in top 50) - which would give arguable horror the advantage/tie with arguable arthouse. There is probably more arthouse overall (and there is arthouse horror ), and arthouse - or at least specific kinds of arthouse - gets access through critics and academics - but in terms of specific lists, they are not placated to like the genres. That's both a sign of their relative privilege (though nothing compared to classic Hollywood) and the lack of specific focus the niche has received.

It was also mainly a counter to the idea that arthouse dominates, especially if compared to "genre" filmmaking and "genre" lists - as there are not even surrealism or minimalism lists - while almost every genre is covered in great detail.

Obviously, if you are in a particularly small niche, the existing cult lists may not work - but hearing you speak it sounds like everything is arthouse. Kurosawa is mainstream/commercial - so is Alfred Hitchcock, etc. If we look at the films on the most lists everything is extremely mainstream. 2001 may pass for arthouse, though it is also one of the biggest blockbusters of all time - making it a rare breed. After that 8 1/2 and Andrei Rublev (and possibly Sunrise) are the only films that would qualify among the 50 films on the most lists.

I feel like what you define as arthouse is not dissimilar to how you view "small, niche cult lists". I think there are probably subsets of arthouse you feel are not well-represented on ICM which may certainly be the case. If so, then I would encourage you to find a list that represents that niche well not unlike the lists genre fans have been suggesting. But to say that arthouse as a whole is severely under-represented is just not true. They just aren't tied to a specific kind of list. But arthouse films are found peppered throughout not just the 21st TSPST list but also all of the festival lists, the ICM 500< 400, DTC as well as most if not all the country and critics lists as well.

Think you misunderstood me there. I'm not making the case that arthouse is underrepresented, merely that it is far from dominating iCM.

Honestly if you want to talk about under-representation, adult films would be by far the biggest gap, comprising one of the largest bodies of work in the industry without even a single list to represent it (and no, I'm not demanding an adult films list... just making a point).

No comment.

[kongs_speech]

Honestly if you want to talk about under-representation, adult films would be by far the biggest gap, comprising one of the largest bodies of work in the industry without even a single list to represent it (and no, I'm not demanding an adult films list... just making a point).

I agree, except that I am demanding it ... or at least politely insisting.

[Onderhond]

I don't know anyone who actually likes Momotaro's Divine Sea Warriors, so I don't agree with that analogy.

The analogy was based on being a cornerstone of a genre, not on popularity. What both films have in common is that they are terribly representatives of the genre in general (and I actually quite like A Touch of Zen, but I'd never recommend it as a representative of the martial arts genre).

Similarly, who would pick The Host as a good representative for contemporary Asian horror? It's a typical SK genre mix that can very well be classified as a horror film, but has no place in an introductory lists when there's film like Ringu around. Which again, is not a statement of quality, since I actually prefer The Host to Ringu.

Mainstream =//= Contemporary mainstream.

Look, either we agree on some kind of definition, or it's better to stop a discussion where we're both discussing different things.

I'm willing to agree with the above statement when you give me better words/definitions to work with, but as far as people identifying as mainstream film fans go, Mainstream == Contemporary mainstream. Never ever did I meet someone who identified as a mainstream film fan and started talking about 2001 and Hitchcock. Which doesn't mean such a person wouldn't exist, but they sure are rare and not representative for the group I'm talking about. Similarly, if you ask people what kind of music they like and the answer with "pop", there's a very slim chance they're talking about Elvis Presley, even though his music was considered pop back in the day.

But just tell me what to call them so there's no more confusion from here on out, otherwise this entire part of the conversation is just moot.

But when it comes to the demographic I'm talking about, there are max 10 lists that would maybe make sense to them? From a total of 210?

Also, when you say "film buff cliche" - unless I'm missing something, it just means films people who like films may like

No, the film buff cliché is the cliché that paints film fans as mostly interested in arthouse, classic cinema and festival favorites. Preferably Cannes/Berlin/Venice stuff, not the genre fests. That definitely covers an important part of cinephilia (the part that has the people who identify with the worth "cinephile"), but far from all parts.

[Fergenaprido]

but this is a website that still does top 50s based on the ratings from IMDb. It is attempting to be for everyone, regardless of level.

Then why would you choose to add an "introductory" list that only caters to the cliché film buff? Will there be introductory Asian lists added for people who prefer commercial/blockbuster cinema and for people who like genre/cult films? If so, I'll retract my reservations.

Are you aware of any such lists? I'd consider adopting one of them, with the caveat that "Asian" doesn't just mean "Japan/Korea/Greater China". I can already imagine a list with Turkish comedies, Bollywood musicals, Hong Kong martial arts films, Southeast Asian horrors, and Japanese crime thrillers. I haven't come across any, but then I'm not particularly well-versed in contemporary/popular Asian cinema compared to some folks around here, so I may not be looking in the right places.

Won't say much about the rest of the discussion, but I'm enjoying reading it, even if everyone's not seeing eye to eye on various topics.

[Onderhond]

Are you aware of any such lists?

Nopes, I come to ICM to consume lists, rarely to contribute lists, as lists don't really work for me when it comes to finding the films I love

I can already imagine a list with Turkish comedies, Bollywood musicals, Hong Kong martial arts films, Southeast Asian horrors, and Japanese crime thrillers.

And they'd all have their place on such a list. Next to a reduction of the type of films that dominate the BIFF list.

Bollywood musicals

Good example by the way. According to the BIFF list, the best way to discover India is by watching 4 Ray films and 2 Bollywood films from the 50s. After that, you're all up to speed! Gotta wonder who the people are who keep pushing all those Bollywood films into the IMDb Top 250. Probably just a single greasy troll in a Mumbai basement.

[mjf314]

Are you aware of any such lists? I'd consider adopting one of them, with the caveat that "Asian" doesn't just mean "Japan/Korea/Greater China". I can already imagine a list with Turkish comedies, Bollywood musicals, Hong Kong martial arts films, Southeast Asian horrors, and Japanese crime thrillers. I haven't come across any, but then I'm not particularly well-versed in contemporary/popular Asian cinema compared to some folks around here, so I may not be looking in the right places.

I'm tempted to try create an "introduction to Asian cinema" list that would satisfy both the arthouse people and the Onderhonds. I'm probably not the most qualified person to do it, but maybe I'll give it a try anyway.

[Onderhond]

I will stress again, if you make an introductory list to Asian cinema, there is no need to satisfy the Onderhonds (as there is no point, I've seen 4500+ films from the region). But please make a list that actually introduces people with limited experience to the various types of cinema that Asia has to offer and pick representative films.

The BIFF list the equivalent of an "introduction to Asian cuisine" that doesn't even care to mention sushi but offers five different nato recipes.

[flavo5000]

There is probably more arthouse overall (and there is arthouse horror ), and arthouse - or at least specific kinds of arthouse - gets access through critics and academics - but in terms of specific lists, they are not placated to like the genres. That's both a sign of their relative privilege (though nothing compared to classic Hollywood) and the lack of specific focus the niche has received.

It was also mainly a counter to the idea that arthouse dominates, especially if compared to "genre" filmmaking and "genre" lists - as there are not even surrealism or minimalism lists - while almost every genre is covered in great detail.

I think for arthouse specifically it all boils down to a clear definition of what it even is. If you ask person A, they may say "foreign films", Person B may say "stuff like The Reader and The Souvenir" meaning mid-tier budget studio-financed dramas, Person C may say "A24 movies", Person D may say "not stuff that plays at my local theater". And I mean, none of these things are really conducive to building a cohesive list out of or are probably representing what you mean when you are thinking of "arthouse" cinema. I mean, at a base-level, the definition would seem to be films that play theatrically but only at smaller non-chain theaters. But really with the popularity of streaming services, a lot of those films are bypassing theaters altogether and going direct to streaming. Plus, my local megaplex has played some pretty random, niche stuff in the past if it was a slow week for big Hollywood movies. I think as long as the lack of clarity exists around what arthouse even is, you will probably never see a list adopted for it.

To your point on the minimalism list, I do think that Slow Cinema list would be a good contender for adoption even if I personally am not the biggest fan of that style of filmmaking.

[OldAle1]

There is probably more arthouse overall (and there is arthouse horror ), and arthouse - or at least specific kinds of arthouse - gets access through critics and academics - but in terms of specific lists, they are not placated to like the genres. That's both a sign of their relative privilege (though nothing compared to classic Hollywood) and the lack of specific focus the niche has received.

It was also mainly a counter to the idea that arthouse dominates, especially if compared to "genre" filmmaking and "genre" lists - as there are not even surrealism or minimalism lists - while almost every genre is covered in great detail.

I think for arthouse specifically it all boils down to a clear definition of what it even is. If you ask person A, they may say "foreign films", Person B may say "stuff like The Reader and The Souvenir" meaning mid-tier budget studio-financed dramas, Person C may say "A24 movies", Person D may say "not stuff that plays at my local theater". And I mean, none of these things are really conducive to building a cohesive list out of or are probably representing what you mean when you are thinking of "arthouse" cinema. I mean, at a base-level, the definition would seem to be films that play theatrically but only at smaller non-chain theaters. But really with the popularity of streaming services, a lot of those films are bypassing theaters altogether and going direct to streaming. Plus, my local megaplex has played some pretty random, niche stuff in the past if it was a slow week for big Hollywood movies. I think as long as the lack of clarity exists around what arthouse even is, you will probably never see a list adopted for it.

To your point on the minimalism list, I do think that Slow Cinema list would be a good contender for adoption even if I personally am not the biggest fan of that style of filmmaking.

Great post, and your other posts here have been pretty spot-on. "Arthouse" really is a very stupid term and pretty damn meaningless, and I think you get at that. When I worked at video stores - for 10 years, and I was a manager and buyer much of that time - my sense was that to our average customer "arthouse" meant essentially anything that wasn't top 40 - anything that we didn't get 3 or more copies of, that hadn't been advertised a fair bit, etc. And of course, anything that wasn't in English, and most British or Australian films were arthouse. The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover played for quite a while in Chicago, we got I think 6 or 8 copies of it when it came out, it probably made more money than some Steven Seagal films - but you better believe it was arthouse with a capital A. As was Orlando, all the Merchant-Ivory stuff, etc. Really, nearly anything that wasn't aimed at a modern, low-to-middlebrow, very mainstream and culturally conservative audience was automatically arthouse and beyond the pale for half of our patrons. And those same people would never watch an old film (old being more than 2 weeks on video), anything b/w (except Schindler's List, and some of them complained about it), etc etc. So I tend to think of arthouse as more often than not a pejorative used in much the same way as SJW is in a political context. It has no more readily defined meaning than "mainstream" which certainly doesn't mean anything like the same thing to me that it does to Onderhond.

In other words we do need better words and more clear definitions to make this argument more intelligible.

And I'm definitely all for a slow cinema list though once again - is that the best word?

[Onderhond]

The thing with definitions, especially when describing larger concepts and groups, is that they are never ever perfect and/or fitting. So it comes down to how you look at them.

The term arthouse gives pretty solid coverage of a typical group of film fans and the corresponding films they love. If you look at coverage and distinction with other core groups it's a perfectly serviceable term. On the other hand, if you're prefer to focus on fringe cases and areas that are less clear, you'll find plenty of examples where the definition is anything but definite.

It reminds me of the discussions anime fans used to have about the definition of "anime" ... blissfully unaware it's nothing more than the Japanese word for animation. It was funny to see the confusion in Japan, where they had no issue with Disney films being classified as anime. Regardless, it's a very serviceable umbrella term for Japanese animation, even though within the anime sphere there is still a world of difference between key series, films and styles. But yeah, you're average core anime fan will get all anal about subtle differences, whereas the rest of the world immediately recognizes "anime" as distinctive group of films and series with the animation sphere.

But sure, if people have terms they like better, I have no qualms using the preferred ones here to ease the discussion.

[St. Gloede]

Mainstream =//= Contemporary mainstream.

Look, either we agree on some kind of definition, or it's better to stop a discussion where we're both discussing different things.

I'm willing to agree with the above statement when you give me better words/definitions to work with, but as far as people identifying as mainstream film fans go, Mainstream == Contemporary mainstream. Never ever did I meet someone who identified as a mainstream film fan and started talking about 2001 and Hitchcock. Which doesn't mean such a person wouldn't exist, but they sure are rare and not representative for the group I'm talking about. Similarly, if you ask people what kind of music they like and the answer with "pop", there's a very slim chance they're talking about Elvis Presley, even though his music was considered pop back in the day.

But just tell me what to call them so there's no more confusion from here on out, otherwise this entire part of the conversation is just moot.

We can't even agree on reality apparently. Most people I speak to in real life know Hitchcock and have seen Hitchcock films - plenty are fans with collections, without being into cinema. More people alive have likely seen Psycho than a recent Bay film. You may be in a bubble.

Hell, large parts of older film viewers, i.e. TCM crowd, etc. are not necessarily "film buffs", at least not in the traditional sense.

(and no one will say that Elvis or The Beatles, etc. are not extremely known/mainstream, they are constantly on the radio, etc. People would probably just say Rock'n Roll, Rock, etc. though).

-

Obviously, if you are solely talking about very recent mainstream/commercial films I absolutely agree that they are at a relative disadvantage - but I made that clear from the beginning. I just don't understand what the issue is there. They have IMDb and the Box Office list to correct that, and there are several other mainstream lists like Reddit and Empire, etc. The slow growth has to happen in canon making and in terms of overall lists, it has to take years/decades to catch up in terms of logistics - but just in terms of access, it is instant.

And the general recent mainstream stuff like Fight Club, Lord of the Rings, etc. is really well represented. It is only the mainstream films of say the last few years that will be disadvantage - and even then, something brand new like Endgame is on 10 lists.

-

Btw, in Empire's reader poll 2001 is the 16th best film of all time, and even more shocking - on Reddit, which btw has The Dark Knight as their number one, followed by Lord of the Rings, it is number 13 ...

How is that not mainstream?

But when it comes to the demographic I'm talking about, there are max 10 lists that would maybe make sense to them? From a total of 210?

I'm not sure. This is the Demographic ICM is essentially set up for - i.e. introduce beginners into expanding their views of cinema and explore further.

All the IMDb lists are set up for beginners, with a heavy push for recent, mainstream films to ease them in.

They can also use all the existing key lists and simply sort out the older films until they feel they are ready for them - or if they never get ready for them, just ignore them. Back when I was a teenager, and was biased against older cinema, I still used the IMDb top 250 and just ignored the entries I did not think would interest me.

Unless you are just talking about casual blockbuster fans - who may enjoy (erm ... honestly, I have no idea) these are the contemporary mainstream viewers who mainly likes popular action, thriller and drama films, right? Plenty of them everywhere. We even have the Oscar lists (including BP nominees) and Golden Globe set up for them with new films every year.

Also, when you say "film buff cliche" - unless I'm missing something, it just means films people who like films may like

No, the film buff cliché is the cliché that paints film fans as mostly interested in arthouse, classic cinema and festival favourites. Preferably Cannes/Berlin/Venice stuff, not the genre fests. That definitely covers an important part of cinephilia (the part that has the people who identify with the worth "cinephile"), but far from all parts.

Once again we live in very different realities.

It is even directly contradictory.

Look at Berlinale for example. 25% of the Golden Bear winners are only on this list and more than half is on two lists or less.

Festival favourites, particularly current festival favourites, do not dominate iCM.

As for the " film buff cliché" it really seems like you are throwing absolutely everything in there under one label - and don't see that it is the near-complete collection of all the varied tastes that make up film fandom, especially as most people talking about genre films are people who love their own classics, be it classic horror, crime, war, etc. or very specific genres like spaghetti westerns, blacksploitation, etc.

We might just be talking past each other here, and maybe it is best to just leave it as reality seems fickle.