Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
500<400 (Nominations Sep 22nd)
Polls: Benelux (Results), 1944 awards (Sep 23rd), 1964 (Sep 28th), Knockout competition (Round 1)
Challenges: Silent Era, 21st Century, Japan
Film of the Week: Reindeerspotting - pako Joulumaasta, October nominations (Sep 27th)

The quest to rescue the IMDb lists

Post Reply
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 29371
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

The quest to rescue the IMDb lists

#641

Post by joachimt » January 14th, 2015, 5:58 pm

I'm glad with the official check after watching some random crap. :whistling:

Seriously, I don't think the list needs to be capped at a certain amount, but at a certain amount of money, but that amount needs to be corrected for inflation. Correction for inflation is the most obvious thing to do here. But is it easy?
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

Samlion
Posts: 618
Joined: Sep 03, 2012
Location: Paris
Contact:

#642

Post by Samlion » January 14th, 2015, 6:02 pm

i think a cap by year, maybe 10 per year, will be better. if you do a top 100 or a rise-up of the entry level based on inflation, you will exclude some great popular success from the 70/80/90 and that would be a great shame/loss. a list only with 10/15 years old movie is not interesting

split by decade
30 : 1
40 :1
50 : 0
60 : 2
70 : 11
80 : 30
90 : 126
00 : 180
10 : 235
in the 90's, 200 millions was for great success and usualy it meant 100m$ in the USA and 100m$ abroad (russia and china were not on the map of BO)
Last edited by Samlion on January 14th, 2015, 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2828
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#643

Post by Onderhond » January 14th, 2015, 6:06 pm

Reasons as "because I can't finish it" are really no valid reasons at all. Not everyone is looking for high-brow movies and it's actually somewhat refeshing to have a list like that in between all the arthouse and critically acclaimed stuff. Now if there were only some decent genre film lists ...

User avatar
Melvelet
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mar 29, 2013
Contact:

#644

Post by Melvelet » January 14th, 2015, 6:34 pm

Onderhond on Jan 14 2015, 11:06:29 AM wrote:Reasons as "because I can't finish it" are really no valid reasons at all. Not everyone is looking for high-brow movies and it's actually somewhat refeshing to have a list like that in between all the arthouse and critically acclaimed stuff. Now if there were only some decent genre film lists ...
Seconded.
By number of favourites this is among of the most popular official lists on the site.
Current recommendation: Mutter Küsters' Fahrt zum Himmel (1975)


ImageImage


Current focus: Germany, Spain

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 29371
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#645

Post by joachimt » January 14th, 2015, 6:37 pm

Melvelet on Jan 14 2015, 11:34:57 AM wrote:
Onderhond on Jan 14 2015, 11:06:29 AM wrote:Reasons as "because I can't finish it" are really no valid reasons at all. Not everyone is looking for high-brow movies and it's actually somewhat refeshing to have a list like that in between all the arthouse and critically acclaimed stuff. Now if there were only some decent genre film lists ...
Seconded.
By number of favourites this is among of the most popular official lists on the site.
Then maybe we shouldn't mess with it at all.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 414
Joined: May 06, 2014
Contact:

#646

Post by Tasselfoot » January 14th, 2015, 8:05 pm

If you increased the amount from 200mil to 500mil, it would currently be at 130 films. But then you get the subjective discussion of when to increase the amount and by how much. Which is why a hard cap of top-x films works better.

The logic of "losing great films from 70s-90s" doesn't hold... since that's what the inflation-adjusted list is for. However, it is a bit odd that the inflation-adjusted list is just for us domestic and the non-inflation list is for worldwide. I feel like those 2 lists should be using the same valuation... either both us-domestic or both worldwide. And they should both have the same number of films (be it top-100 or more).
Last edited by Tasselfoot on January 14th, 2015, 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22937
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#647

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » January 14th, 2015, 9:52 pm

World-wide and US domestic box-office have grown in very different ways, especially over the last decade. 15 years ago hardly anyone cared about worldwide box office. Any box office news article you read would begin and end with US domestic totals. I can't speak for what people in the industry thought, but my impression is that territorial rights were sold and after that it was someone else's problem.

Because of this there are actually many problems trying to make the list balanced over time.
- Worldwide records for most films before this century are not very accurate
Example: (Three Men and a Baby $168 Million domestic #1 film from 1987)
(Good Morning, Vietnam $124 Million domestic #4 film from 1987)
(Moonstruck $81 Million domestic #5 film from 1987)
(The Untouchables $76 Million domestic #6 film from 1987)
Four very different films, 4 of the 6 highest grossing films of the year, and none of them got an international release? And 1987 isn't that long ago.

-Adjusting for inflation is already somewhat dubious in the US domestic list, with different parts of the country having different ticket prices, it is nearly impossible in a worldwide context where ticket prices vary drastically and exchange rates fluctuate significantly in the span of months, let alone years.

- Worldwide box office as a market has grown much faster than the US market, which itself has grown quite a bit, so even with perfect data and perfect inflation adjustment, recent films will rule simply based on market+population growth.

Someone at some point suggested changing the list to be the top 5 or 10 of each year. I disagreed with that because of the high variability of the number of "hits" each year, but I think changing the list to Top 50 per decade (1920s-2010s) might be a worthwhile way to adjust the list. It would still be a big list but it would really be the only reasonable way to get the kind of breadth some of you want.
Last edited by PeacefulAnarchy on January 14th, 2015, 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dimitris Psachos Springer
Posts: 873
Joined: Aug 09, 2011
Contact:

#648

Post by Dimitris Psachos Springer » January 15th, 2015, 10:03 am

joachimt on Jan 14 2015, 11:37:44 AM wrote:
Melvelet on Jan 14 2015, 11:34:57 AM wrote:
Onderhond on Jan 14 2015, 11:06:29 AM wrote:Reasons as "because I can't finish it" are really no valid reasons at all. Not everyone is looking for high-brow movies and it's actually somewhat refeshing to have a list like that in between all the arthouse and critically acclaimed stuff. Now if there were only some decent genre film lists ...
Seconded.
By number of favourites this is among of the most popular official lists on the site.
Then maybe we shouldn't mess with it at all.
Way too much crap piling up year by year to let it as messy as it already is...

Peaceful's suggestion is worthwhile to be discussed, but my main beef here is with how the list is at times updated and at times left to rot e.g. Planes I think is still out of the list even if it passed the 200 m benchmark likewise a few others (although I noticed just today recent additions but a few more are still not part of the list)

So my primary concern is: either care to update it on time or limit it to a top 250 or an inflated number of sufficient inclusions like Peaceful mentioned.

Let's be honest, there's NOTHING refreshing when it comes to a yearly compilation of trashy occurrences, where the trilogy of Alvin and the incompetence of a Bryan Singer non-X-Men flick meet's Twilights and several debated Arnie flicks.

Nope, non, nada, nothing of mention here, most of those "mainstream" picks by the way aren't even worth your time to be called "so bad they're good films", so that they may be included in that BadMovies.org list.

A handful of 90's exceptions aren't enough to save this list from being probably the worst, if not definitely in the top 10 of worst lists of this site, UNLESS it somehow manages to reach to a complimentary level of dignity. That will only happen if it cuts down the 200 m mark and increases it to say 500 m or Peaceful's examples above.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 29371
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#649

Post by joachimt » January 15th, 2015, 10:48 am

Dimitris Psachos Springer on Jan 15 2015, 03:03:20 AM wrote:Let's be honest, there's NOTHING refreshing when it comes to a yearly compilation of trashy occurrences, where the trilogy of Alvin and the incompetence of a Bryan Singer non-X-Men flick meet's Twilights and several debated Arnie flicks.
Being refreshing is not the purpose of this list. People go to the cinema to see this stuff. Even if they aren't good movies, they are popular.

Sure, it needs to be updated of course.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

JCS
Posts: 690
Joined: Oct 21, 2011
Location: London, UK
Contact:

#650

Post by JCS » January 15th, 2015, 10:50 am

I quite like the list.

And they just added 4 more films today.

User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 384
Joined: May 03, 2013
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#651

Post by Harco » January 15th, 2015, 1:20 pm

I like it as well; it gives me an incentive to watch blockbusters. 8)

Today Penguins, Night at the Museum 3, Exodus and Fury have been added. So Penguins has finally made it onto the list. Why now all of a sudden?
Last edited by Harco on January 15th, 2015, 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bal3x
Donator
Posts: 13022
Joined: May 26, 2011
Contact:

#652

Post by bal3x » January 15th, 2015, 2:34 pm

I don't really understand what the problem is - it's very easy to ignore this list.. I don't like the list, I ignore it, but why would it need to be removed? It's good to know what is popular these days, it provides that information.. Synced updating is another question though..

Dimitris Psachos Springer
Posts: 873
Joined: Aug 09, 2011
Contact:

#653

Post by Dimitris Psachos Springer » January 15th, 2015, 6:34 pm

^ Yup, like Bal and Joachim re-mention it, the delayed updates are my primary concern and I mean full-blown updates, not selective choices. I recall they had missed Dracula and added it after several months/years since the list's inception. The same happens with Planes and 1-2 films I can't remember right now.

I can safely suspect this happens because the Box Office List follows the IMDb trademark of its lists, hence...

However, whoever decided the 200 million mark will be the checkpoint to add films on the list? IMDb-based again?

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22937
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#654

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » January 15th, 2015, 6:42 pm

Dimitris Psachos Springer on Jan 15 2015, 11:34:26 AM wrote:However, whoever decided the 200 million mark will be the checkpoint to add films on the list? IMDb-based again?
Possibly, though I suspect it's just because it's double 100 million, which was/is the conventional benchmark for a US domestic hit since well before imdb existed.

Dimitris Psachos Springer
Posts: 873
Joined: Aug 09, 2011
Contact:

#655

Post by Dimitris Psachos Springer » January 19th, 2015, 10:55 am

PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 15 2015, 11:42:02 AM wrote:
Dimitris Psachos Springer on Jan 15 2015, 11:34:26 AM wrote:However, whoever decided the 200 million mark will be the checkpoint to add films on the list? IMDb-based again?
Possibly, though I suspect it's just because it's double 100 million, which was/is the conventional benchmark for a US domestic hit since well before imdb existed.
Time for a re-evaluation then?

User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 384
Joined: May 03, 2013
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#656

Post by Harco » January 26th, 2015, 8:48 pm

mjf314 on Jan 7 2015, 05:12:30 PM wrote:
Harco on Jan 7 2015, 04:40:36 PM wrote:Alright, thanks! So because there are no IMDb links on BOM, we can't make it into a list, unless someone updates it manually?
You can use my webpage-reading program to get the BOM URLs (I just tested it and it works). I've attached a reader.txt file that you can use when running the program.

Someone can make a table in Excel with BOM URLs in column A and IMDb URLs in column B, and each time a film makes the list, add it to the table (the table doesn't have to be in order). Then use VLOOKUP to get the list in the correct order. VLOOKUP returns #N/A if it doesn't find something, so you'll know if a film is missing from the table.
I tried messing with this for a bit but I really couldn't get it to work. I have no idea how to open the files in the .RAR file, haha.

User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 384
Joined: May 03, 2013
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#657

Post by Harco » January 27th, 2015, 5:41 am

Ah, I had to update Java and now it's opening the .jar file. I hope to finish the Excel sheet by tomorrow.
Last edited by Harco on January 27th, 2015, 5:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 384
Joined: May 03, 2013
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#658

Post by Harco » January 27th, 2015, 9:13 pm

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/all+ ... ses/harco/

I haven't used the VLOOKUP function as the list is still in order (and I have no clue how to use it). I still need to double check everything.

Attachments:
Last edited by Harco on January 27th, 2015, 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 10803
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#659

Post by mjf314 » January 28th, 2015, 2:26 am

If you wanted to use VLOOKUP, it would look like this (see the attached file).

In columns A and B is the table that maps BOM --> IMDb (which doesn't have to be in the correct order). Then you would run the program to get the list of BOM URLs (in the correct order) and copy/paste it into column G, and then column H gives you the IMDb URLs in the correct order.

Attachments:

User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 384
Joined: May 03, 2013
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#660

Post by Harco » January 28th, 2015, 2:51 am

Thanks for the explanation. That's easy enough. :D

Dimitris Psachos Springer
Posts: 873
Joined: Aug 09, 2011
Contact:

#661

Post by Dimitris Psachos Springer » January 28th, 2015, 6:07 pm

Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis and Planes are still missing from the All Time Box Office list, out of the films I am aware have passed the 200 million mark.

(besides the upcoming additions of American Sniper and Taken 3)

User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 384
Joined: May 03, 2013
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#662

Post by Harco » January 30th, 2015, 4:05 am

Expendables 3, Need for Speed and Non-Stop as well.

User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 414
Joined: May 06, 2014
Contact:

#663

Post by Tasselfoot » February 9th, 2015, 7:30 am

How come the main Top 250 list wasn't given the same treatment as the top50 genre lists? As in, why is there no iCM 1500+ check minimum? There are currently 3 films under 1500 checks on the top250... all 3 are Bollywood and all 3 are only on the Top 250 list.

edit: The next 5 fewest checked movies on the list are 4 Bollywood + 1 Turkish. Putting an iCM check minimum at 2500 would erase 4 of those (the bottom 7, total). It would leave Lagaan.
Last edited by Tasselfoot on February 9th, 2015, 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jvv
Donator
Posts: 8215
Joined: May 28, 2011
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#664

Post by jvv » February 9th, 2015, 7:44 am

Tasselfoot on Feb 9 2015, 12:30:33 AM wrote:How come the main Top 250 list wasn't given the same treatment as the top50 genre lists? As in, why is there no iCM 1500+ check minimum? There are currently 3 films under 1500 checks on the top250... all 3 are Bollywood and all 3 are only on the Top 250 list.

edit: The next 5 fewest checked movies on the list are 4 Bollywood + 1 Turkish. Putting an iCM check minimum at 2500 would erase 4 of those (the bottom 7, total). It would leave Lagaan.
The main top 250 list is still an actual Imdb list unlike the genre lists.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22937
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#665

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » February 9th, 2015, 7:44 am

Tasselfoot on Feb 9 2015, 12:30:33 AM wrote:How come the main Top 250 list wasn't given the same treatment as the top50 genre lists? As in, why is there no iCM 1500+ check minimum? There are currently 3 films under 1500 checks on the top250... all 3 are Bollywood and all 3 are only on the Top 250 list.

edit: The next 5 fewest checked movies on the list are 4 Bollywood + 1 Turkish. Putting an iCM check minimum at 2500 would erase 4 of those (the bottom 7, total). It would leave Lagaan.
Because imdb still maintains the Top 250 with, supposedly, filters for regular voters and such.

User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 414
Joined: May 06, 2014
Contact:

#666

Post by Tasselfoot » February 16th, 2015, 6:17 pm

Another Bollywood film hits 25k votes and pops into top250 at #127. Lucky us! At least the new Aamir Khan film dropped out, still leaving the bottom 8 least checked at 7 Bollywood + Eskiya. Gangs of Wasseypur continues to lose ground, falling to 214... maybe in another few months it'll drop out of the 250.

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3398
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#667

Post by tommy_leazaq » February 16th, 2015, 6:22 pm

Embrace the Bollywood! :happy:

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3182
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#668

Post by Fergenaprido » February 16th, 2015, 6:23 pm

Tasselfoot on Feb 16 2015, 11:17:56 AM wrote:Another Bollywood film hits 25k votes and pops into top250 at #127. Lucky us! At least the new Aamir Khan film dropped out, still leaving the bottom 8 least checked at 7 Bollywood + Eskiya. Gangs of Wasseypur continues to lose ground, falling to 214... maybe in another few months it'll drop out of the 250.
Give them time and I'm sure some will self-correct themselves out of the list as more people vote on them. It might take a year or two, but oh well. If it's any consolation, Le samouraï should hit 25k votes before the end of the month, and it should reenter the Top 250. Birdman is also dropping fast (almost 100 spots in a month), so it might not be long for the list either.

drbop
Posts: 779
Joined: Nov 05, 2014
Contact:

#669

Post by drbop » February 17th, 2015, 6:20 am

Tasselfoot on Feb 16 2015, 11:17:56 AM wrote:Another Bollywood film hits 25k votes and pops into top250 at #127. Lucky us! At least the new Aamir Khan film dropped out, still leaving the bottom 8 least checked at 7 Bollywood + Eskiya. Gangs of Wasseypur continues to lose ground, falling to 214... maybe in another few months it'll drop out of the 250.
Funny, outside this forum (such as professional film critics), I usually hear good things about Gangs of Wasseypur. What do people here who have seen it think?

User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 414
Joined: May 06, 2014
Contact:

#670

Post by Tasselfoot » February 17th, 2015, 6:00 pm

I have it downloaded, but haven't watched... but the things I am hearing about it is that it's actually decent. As opposed to the rest of the Bollywood films on the list. However, that still does not mean I want to spend 5+ hours to see it.

User avatar
cinephage
Donator
Posts: 3696
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Contact:

#671

Post by cinephage » February 17th, 2015, 6:19 pm

drbop on Feb 16 2015, 11:20:04 PM wrote:
Tasselfoot on Feb 16 2015, 11:17:56 AM wrote:Another Bollywood film hits 25k votes and pops into top250 at #127. Lucky us! At least the new Aamir Khan film dropped out, still leaving the bottom 8 least checked at 7 Bollywood + Eskiya. Gangs of Wasseypur continues to lose ground, falling to 214... maybe in another few months it'll drop out of the 250.
Funny, outside this forum (such as professional film critics), I usually hear good things about Gangs of Wasseypur. What do people here who have seen it think?
I like it. It's not the usual bollywood comedy, it's inspired by such hollywood classics as Godfather or once upon a time in America.
The movie's about a gang feud that lasts over 3 generations...

It's certainly not as good as the titles I mentionned, but it's quite enjoyable, and there are no musical pieces interrupting the action. Instead, the score is made of indian hits, and is used as background sound that allows the audience to note the passing of time.
I recommend it, it's really worth a watch.
Last edited by cinephage on February 17th, 2015, 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dimitris Psachos Springer
Posts: 873
Joined: Aug 09, 2011
Contact:

#672

Post by Dimitris Psachos Springer » February 17th, 2015, 9:37 pm

For what it's worth, Lagaan and Wasseypur are on my top 3 of modern Bollywood films I've watched (and will probably stay that way, along with A Wednesday in number 3 spot) and considering some extremely pathetic films like Shawshank and Gump exist on the Top 250, Wasseypur certainly deserves the inclusion (and should have been higher than other "contemporary" U.S. titles)
Last edited by Dimitris Psachos Springer on February 18th, 2015, 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12351
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#673

Post by Cippenham » February 18th, 2015, 7:36 am

Dimitris Psachos Springer on Feb 17 2015, 02:37:46 PM wrote:For what it's worth, Lagaan and Wasseypur are on my top 3 of modern Bollywood films I've watched (and will probably stay that way, along with A Wednesday in number 3 spot) and considering some extremely pathetic films like Shawshank and Gump exist on the Top 250, Wasseypur certainly deserves the inclusin (and should have been higher than other "contemporary" U.S. titles)
Forrest Gump as you call "Gump" is actually one of the best films ever, at least from Hollywood. The Library of Congress selected Forrest Gump for preservation in the United States National Film Registry as being “culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant.” Who would’ve thought?

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... -1.2023258
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

drbop
Posts: 779
Joined: Nov 05, 2014
Contact:

#674

Post by drbop » February 18th, 2015, 8:30 am

Dimitris Psachos Springer on Feb 17 2015, 02:37:46 PM wrote:For what it's worth, Lagaan and Wasseypur are on my top 3 of modern Bollywood films I've watched (and will probably stay that way, along with A Wednesday in number 3 spot) and considering some extremely pathetic films like Shawshank and Gump exist on the Top 250, Wasseypur certainly deserves the inclusin (and should have been higher than other "contemporary" U.S. titles)
:'( Forrest Gump is in my personal top 20. I can see why a lot of people don't like it though. I myself didn't like it nearly as much the first time I saw it.

Dimitris Psachos Springer
Posts: 873
Joined: Aug 09, 2011
Contact:

#675

Post by Dimitris Psachos Springer » February 18th, 2015, 9:31 am

Cippenham on Feb 18 2015, 12:36:04 AM wrote:
Dimitris Psachos Springer on Feb 17 2015, 02:37:46 PM wrote:For what it's worth, Lagaan and Wasseypur are on my top 3 of modern Bollywood films I've watched (and will probably stay that way, along with A Wednesday in number 3 spot) and considering some extremely pathetic films like Shawshank and Gump exist on the Top 250, Wasseypur certainly deserves the inclusin (and should have been higher than other "contemporary" U.S. titles)
Forrest Gump as you call "Gump" is actually one of the best films ever, at least from Hollywood. The Library of Congress selected Forrest Gump for preservation in the United States National Film Registry as being “culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant.” Who would’ve thought?

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... -1.2023258
..but not existentially, an important factor coming from a "Library" whose shorts are of similar ambiguity to the Official Status of a Brief Encounters shorts list is. It also applies to is feature film choices (thus far, I suppose they'll slowly turn EVERY Hollywood film into a Library of Congress entry :teehee: )

If we want to discuss good Zemeckis films, how about checking Roger Rabbit or Used Cars?
Post-90's Zemeckis is to put it mildly: forgettable.

P.S. Sure I respect all opinions but bashing popular Indian / Turkish / Russian films like they all belong to the trash bin is just like bashing one's favorite shitty Best Picture winner (Driving Miss Daisy, English Patient, Beautiful Mind, Crash alerts) or any mainstream-indie "wonder kid" (insert any of the Coppolas, Spielberg, Aronofsky, Nolan, Tarantino etc) and I don't effing care about how "worldwide popular" those films/directors are.

User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 414
Joined: May 06, 2014
Contact:

#676

Post by Tasselfoot » February 18th, 2015, 3:31 pm

The main difference is: one category of films is extremely well regarded in a multitude of countries / all over the world by a large percentage of the population while the other category is generally extremely well regarded in its home country and considered mediocre or worse in most of the rest of the world.

Dimitris Psachos Springer
Posts: 873
Joined: Aug 09, 2011
Contact:

#677

Post by Dimitris Psachos Springer » February 18th, 2015, 4:44 pm

Tasselfoot on Feb 18 2015, 08:31:50 AM wrote:The main difference is: one category of films is extremely well regarded in a multitude of countries / all over the world by a large percentage of the population while the other category is generally extremely well regarded in its home country and considered mediocre or worse in most of the rest of the world.
Goes to show how extremely one-sided, dumb and philistine most of the world is who frequently labels mainstream successes as "something special" instead of realizing that Donnie Darko and Rang de Basanti are one and the same ;)

User avatar
Knaldskalle
Moderator
Posts: 9515
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: New Mexico, Trumpistan
Contact:

#678

Post by Knaldskalle » February 18th, 2015, 5:55 pm

I hate Forrest Gump. All the accolades in the world won't change that.
Personal film goals for 2019.
ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Cocoa
Donator
Posts: 1501
Joined: Jul 17, 2013
Location: Chicago, USA
Contact:

#679

Post by Cocoa » February 18th, 2015, 8:16 pm

Forrest Gump hate :wub: I have an older brother that loves the film. I had to sit through it so many times during childhood as a result :'(

User avatar
bal3x
Donator
Posts: 13022
Joined: May 26, 2011
Contact:

#680

Post by bal3x » February 18th, 2015, 8:26 pm

Cippenham on Feb 18 2015, 12:36:04 AM wrote:
Dimitris Psachos Springer on Feb 17 2015, 02:37:46 PM wrote:For what it's worth, Lagaan and Wasseypur are on my top 3 of modern Bollywood films I've watched (and will probably stay that way, along with A Wednesday in number 3 spot) and considering some extremely pathetic films like Shawshank and Gump exist on the Top 250, Wasseypur certainly deserves the inclusin (and should have been higher than other "contemporary" U.S. titles)
Forrest Gump as you call "Gump" is actually one of the best films ever, at least from Hollywood. The Library of Congress selected Forrest Gump for preservation in the United States National Film Registry as being “culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant.” Who would’ve thought?

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... -1.2023258
Didn't you know anything coming out of murica is “culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant”? :P On a serious note I find it rather odd to see Gump selected for that list seeing as how many other seemingly much more "significant" films have not deserved such treatment...

Post Reply