Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
NOTE: Board emails should be working again. Information on forum upgrade and style issues.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 22 released November 17th * EXCLUSIVE * We Are Mentioned in a Book!!! Interview with Mary Guillermin on Rapture, JG & More)
Polls: 1970s (Results), 1950 (Jun 24th), Japan (Jun 30th), Essential Cinema (Jul 11th)
Challenges: Italy, Queer Cinema, Film From Each Year
Film of the Week: Drive a Crooked Road, July nominations (Jun 25th)

They Shoot Zombies, Don't They?

Post Reply
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 3314
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#1441

Post by Torgo »

Old: #590 @438/1000
New: #585 @441/1000

Every step that brings me nearer to the Top 500 or bronze is good, hehe.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 7123
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#1442

Post by Onderhond »

1SO wrote: May 14th, 2021, 6:45 pm 817. Joshua (2007) - from out of nowhere. Never even heard of it.
Same here, until two or three days before the update, when the film was suddenly added to Disney+ here. Lucky coincidence I guess.
Not bad, but definitely leaning on some subpar drama. I liked the kid's performance though, which is quite rare. Usually these evil kid films fail that part pretty hard.
User avatar
1SO
Posts: 855
Joined: December 30th, 2011, 7:00 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

#1443

Post by 1SO »

The kid looked like John Mulaney, which added some discomfort given the comedian's current troubles. As for this type of film, I'm a big fan of Orphan, but that's not a popular opinion.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 7123
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#1444

Post by Onderhond »

1SO wrote: May 17th, 2021, 8:08 pm I'm a big fan of Orphan, but that's not a popular opinion.
It isn't :mw_confused: 7 average with nearly 200K votes on IMDb is insanely high for a horror film, no?
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 4741
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#1445

Post by flavo5000 »

Onderhond wrote: May 17th, 2021, 8:31 pm
1SO wrote: May 17th, 2021, 8:08 pm I'm a big fan of Orphan, but that's not a popular opinion.
It isn't :mw_confused: 7 average with nearly 200K votes on IMDb is insanely high for a horror film, no?
I think it's one of those that has gotten rediscovered in the last couple years. On its initial release, the reviews weren't very kind (sitting at a 42/100 on metacritic) but I've seen it start showing up on more best horror lists lately.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 3314
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#1446

Post by Torgo »

Onderhond wrote: May 17th, 2021, 8:31 pm
1SO wrote: May 17th, 2021, 8:08 pm I'm a big fan of Orphan, but that's not a popular opinion.
It isn't :mw_confused: 7 average with nearly 200K votes on IMDb is insanely high for a horror film, no?
:D IMDb fanboy here to confirm how rarely a horror film gets such a score, even more so at so many votes. Last 15 years, 140k+ votes, 6.8+; heck, 6.5 is a good rating for a modern, pure horror film.
Evil kids & children in horror, or: generally kids & children there .. ugh.
User avatar
weirdboy
Donator
Posts: 4098
Joined: January 3rd, 2016, 7:00 am
Contact:

#1447

Post by weirdboy »

Huh TSZDT is like the anti-DtC.

Somehow I added 6 checks on the new list. Maybe thanks to ICMFF? That is the only explanation I can come up with.
User avatar
peeptoad
Posts: 2928
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#1448

Post by peeptoad »

I'm only at 49/150 for the hidden horrors. Might tab off some of them for October.
dirty_score
Posts: 612
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#1449

Post by dirty_score »

mightysparks wrote: May 14th, 2021, 12:31 pm My main goal for next year's list is to find a better way of weighting lists which I started experimenting with a year ago but just haven't had the time to seriously focus on it. One of the biggest issues with the current system is that the majority of sources are not critics and so are weighted the same even though some lists are clearly of higher quality etc.

But I've also been wondering what to do with these non-horror films. I'm ok with some of the questionable ones like film noirs, 'horrors of war' type of films and 'haunting' dramas, but I'm talking about stuff like 27 Dresses, The Sound of Music, Mary Poppins... But then, where does it end? I don't really want to start dictating what horror is/should be. The Harry Potter films have votes and I guess yea they have some 'horror' scenes, dark fantasy, witches, supernatural but they still seem odd. And then what about Fargo? Synecdoche, New York? Idiocracy? I can see how people could think of them as 'horror' at a streeeeeetch but they don't really make sense.

Should I start excluding these kinds of films or should I leave it as is? I could make up a 'draft' list of films for possible exclusion and we could weigh them up...
Ideally, I think, is to delete samey-samey lists. Less lists with stronger sources, quality over quantity. I would recommend putting more effort in lists that focus less on North America/english horror and more into other regions such as Asia, for example. In a list of 1000 titles, having only 56 movies seems extremely low. I prefer last year's update and still think the 1001-2000 has a lot of movies worthy of the main list. There aren't perfect lists, but there's lots of room for improvement.
In any case, thanks for all the hard work :cheers:
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 12011
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#1450

Post by mjf314 »

No, I don't think you should exclude any films. If a film appears on enough horror lists to make the top 1000, then it should be in the top 1000.

However, you may want to check what types of lists include films like Mary Poppins. If the title of the list is something like "best family films that happen to include a slightly scary scene", you'll probably want to give it less weight.

Are any of the films that you mentioned actually in the top 1000? If they're not in the top 1000, then I wouldn't worry about it.
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 1713
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Location: FL
Contact:

#1451

Post by kongs_speech »

mjf314 wrote: June 5th, 2021, 12:37 pm No, I don't think you should exclude any films. If a film appears on enough horror lists to make the top 1000, then it should be in the top 1000.
I don't agree with this. There is no possible justification on Earth for Mary Poppins, The Sound of Music or 27 Dresses as horror, though Sound is admittedly horrific to sit through. If there's a poll for the top 1000 foods and several of the source lists include actual dog shit, it should obviously be excluded from the list, because dog shit isn't food.
🏳️‍⚧️
Quartoxuma wrote: A deeply human, life-affirming disgusting check whore.
Image
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 3314
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#1452

Post by Torgo »

What an amazing comparison. :lol:
Yeah I principally don't like the manipulation of singular titles, no matter how off they are, but I'd just consider ignoring the respective list or giving it a lower weight, as said.
As long as these complete bogus titles are below #2000, it's not that big of a problem, at least. If 27 Dresses somehow made it there, there would be a problem with the sources, or just the whole makind has gone mad.


[edit]btw - Otto Muehl would like to have a word with you .. :ph43r:
Last edited by Torgo on June 5th, 2021, 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 12011
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#1453

Post by mjf314 »

kongs_speech wrote: June 5th, 2021, 1:25 pm
mjf314 wrote: June 5th, 2021, 12:37 pm No, I don't think you should exclude any films. If a film appears on enough horror lists to make the top 1000, then it should be in the top 1000.
I don't agree with this. There is no possible justification on Earth for Mary Poppins, The Sound of Music or 27 Dresses as horror, though Sound is admittedly horrific to sit through. If there's a poll for the top 1000 foods and several of the source lists include actual dog shit, it should obviously be excluded from the list, because dog shit isn't food.
But none of those films made the top 1000 anyway, so who cares? Are there any films in the top 1000 that you think should be excluded?
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 31513
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#1454

Post by mightysparks »

Most of the dodgy titles are not in the top 2000 but some are sort of close. I will be weighting some of the 'samey' lists a lot less next time and I'll probably ditch a few when I go back over them. I will also lower the weighting of lists that seem too much like 'witch films with scary scenes'. I don't really want to exclude films but those jokey entries are annoying. I thought of maybe having some weighting system for films who don't have the horror tag on IMDb but then that would lower something like Jaws. I could possibly manually mark certain films as not horror and have their points reduced or something.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 31513
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#1455

Post by mightysparks »

Also the main issue with having a lot of these dodgy films is that they do affect the ranking of other films. So a legit horror film that ranks low in 4 lists might be ranked wayyyy lower than non-horror 27 Dresses because it appears at #10 in a list (27 Dresses isn't at #10 but just as an example). 27 Dresses is actually ranked #2730 for appearing on one list, yet the classic Death Spa appears on 4 lists and being ranked #2751. I could also just ditch the lists with jokey entries but I think the ones included are actually half-decent sources.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 12011
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#1456

Post by mjf314 »

I think any list of "scary scenes" should be given much less weight than a normal list.
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 31513
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#1457

Post by mightysparks »

I've been fiddling with some of the weighting. I used the first 250 lists or so in the spreadsheet (basically all the lists that start with a number or the letter 'A') to test the new weighting system. In this system there are two extra weighting criteria including a 'credibility' multiplier. Critics and celebs are weighted much higher than just random listmakers, and legit websites and books are ranked much higher than random blog. The numbers had only been slightly higher before. The credibility multiplier is determined by me by researching the author, determining the legitimacy of the website and also how much content or thought seems to be in the list (eg, if there is a page of writing supporting it vs a sentence). This helps prevent every list ending up with a very similar score and better lists will stand out more.

I took those lists out and ran the program but since there aren't as many lists I used lower numbers for minvotes and minranked votes. I first ran it with the original scoring, then with the new weighting system and added all the films with 3+ votes into this list: https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/test ... htysparks/

It's probably difficult to tell with this small random sample but you can see how differently some films are ranked in the new system compared to the old. I might need to take a larger sample before I can see if the new system is working well. A bit annoying because I have to manually rename each file so it's not going to be fun if it turns out to be crap after renaming nearly 4000 files lol.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 4741
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#1458

Post by flavo5000 »

mightysparks wrote: June 7th, 2021, 7:09 am I've been fiddling with some of the weighting. I used the first 250 lists or so in the spreadsheet (basically all the lists that start with a number or the letter 'A') to test the new weighting system. In this system there are two extra weighting criteria including a 'credibility' multiplier. Critics and celebs are weighted much higher than just random listmakers, and legit websites and books are ranked much higher than random blog. The numbers had only been slightly higher before. The credibility multiplier is determined by me by researching the author, determining the legitimacy of the website and also how much content or thought seems to be in the list (eg, if there is a page of writing supporting it vs a sentence). This helps prevent every list ending up with a very similar score and better lists will stand out more.

I took those lists out and ran the program but since there aren't as many lists I used lower numbers for minvotes and minranked votes. I first ran it with the original scoring, then with the new weighting system and added all the films with 3+ votes into this list: https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/test ... htysparks/

It's probably difficult to tell with this small random sample but you can see how differently some films are ranked in the new system compared to the old. I might need to take a larger sample before I can see if the new system is working well. A bit annoying because I have to manually rename each file so it's not going to be fun if it turns out to be crap after renaming nearly 4000 files lol.
Like you said, it's hard to tell for sure yet. But on a first glance, this weighting seems to favor newer films in the Top 500 than before (don't know if that's good or bad). The Shining is back at #1 though which I can definitely get behind. :lol:
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 3314
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#1459

Post by Torgo »

If the change makes Hereditary jump 200 spots, I'm in for it. :P

Yeah I don't know, I like both renditions of the list for different aspects and personally adore modern horror much more, so ..
User avatar
frbrown
Posts: 6683
Joined: November 1st, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#1460

Post by frbrown »

Strange rankings for Universal horror :think:

#24 The Wolf Man
#55 Dracula
#77 Frankenstein
#89 The Invisible Man
#105 Creature from the Black Lagoon
#112 Bride of Frankenstein
User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 6109
Joined: February 9th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#1461

Post by OldAle1 »

mightysparks wrote: June 5th, 2021, 3:02 pm Also the main issue with having a lot of these dodgy films is that they do affect the ranking of other films. So a legit horror film that ranks low in 4 lists might be ranked wayyyy lower than non-horror 27 Dresses because it appears at #10 in a list (27 Dresses isn't at #10 but just as an example). 27 Dresses is actually ranked #2730 for appearing on one list, yet the classic Death Spa appears on 4 lists and being ranked #2751. I could also just ditch the lists with jokey entries but I think the ones included are actually half-decent sources.
Interesting discussion overall, but this seems to be the key point to me. And there ARE "dodgy" films on the main list IMO. Mostly they are films that, while certainly having some horror elements, aren't films that most people (in my estimation anyway) would think of as primarily horror - or horror at all. My top case in point is Westworld. Is the gunslinger hunting Richard Benjamin "horrifying" or "scary"? Sure - but so are people stalking people in zillions of other non-horror films. I've seen Westworld probably 5-6 times since first seeing it on TV in the late 70s, it's a perennial favorite; I'm sure I'm not alone in mentally categorizing it first as science fiction (super-science futuristic robots), a western (much of the setting, and the most memorable character) and a paranoid thriller typical of it's era. Think of it in the context of 1970s American genre films and it clearly belongs with films like The Parallax View and Capricorn One much more than with, say, The Exorcist, The Omen or Halloween. I'd be astonished if this conversation has ever happened in real life:

"Hey can you recommend me a good scary horror movie?"
"Sure, how about Westworld."

So why is it on the list? Well I suppose a large number of people might disagree with me and I might be totally full of shit. Or maybe it's because it's one of those "it's got horror elements in it AND everybody's seen it AND it's a good movie" things - so it's on a lot of lists from non-horror specialists, so it ends up on the main list.

I really love Westworld. I'm glad to see it on more lists. But does it belong on a horror movie list, even a very long one, even near the bottom? I guess I think there are probably still quite a few movies that are primarily horror that might be better fits.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 7123
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#1462

Post by Onderhond »

OldAle1 wrote: June 7th, 2021, 11:40 pm "Hey can you recommend me a good scary horror movie?"
"Sure, how about Westworld."
This very much (but that's for most genre lists imo
OldAle1 wrote: June 7th, 2021, 11:40 pm So why is it on the list? Well I suppose a large number of people might disagree with me and I might be totally full of shit. Or maybe it's because it's one of those "it's got horror elements in it AND everybody's seen it AND it's a good movie" things - so it's on a lot of lists from non-horror specialists, so it ends up on the main list.
I'm guessing it's the latter. You could probably "fix" it if you could assign primary and secondary genres to films, but that's a very complex exercise.
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 31513
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#1463

Post by mightysparks »

Most of the lists it appears on are 'best horror westerns' lists and they're aren't many good ones so I guess anything with even slight genre elements is enough to make it in those lists.

Also it took me a few hours but I managed to write a cmd prompt that allows me to do a batch rename of all files so it should be muchhhh easier to test different weighting systems from now on :banana:
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 12011
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#1464

Post by mjf314 »

mightysparks wrote: June 8th, 2021, 8:31 am Most of the lists it appears on are 'best horror westerns' lists and they're aren't many good ones so I guess anything with even slight genre elements is enough to make it in those lists.
How much weight does a "best horror westerns" list have? I think I would make it worth no more than 25% of a normal list. Maybe even less, if there are a lot of these lists.
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 31513
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#1465

Post by mightysparks »

mjf314 wrote: June 8th, 2021, 2:34 pm
mightysparks wrote: June 8th, 2021, 8:31 am Most of the lists it appears on are 'best horror westerns' lists and they're aren't many good ones so I guess anything with even slight genre elements is enough to make it in those lists.
How much weight does a "best horror westerns" list have? I think I would make it worth no more than 25% of a normal list. Maybe even less, if there are a lot of these lists.
The weight is 0.25 for most of them. Plus the genres folder is weighted less than the other main categories too. They are some of the lowest weighted lists.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image
dirty_score
Posts: 612
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#1466

Post by dirty_score »

BFI's 10 Great Horror Sequels
Be warned that the descriptions contain spoilers for many of the original films.
User avatar
1SO
Posts: 855
Joined: December 30th, 2011, 7:00 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

#1468

Post by 1SO »

I finally took up creating my own Top 1000 using your list as a guide. Cross-checking, I discovered your Full List page hasn't been updated yet.
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 31513
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#1469

Post by mightysparks »

Yeah I’m going to delete it since it’s easier to just use the google sheet. Just haven’t gotten around to it.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image
User avatar
1SO
Posts: 855
Joined: December 30th, 2011, 7:00 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

#1470

Post by 1SO »

Want to thank you again. Without your effort and hard work I wouldn't even have the curiosity to see if I could make a Top 1000 tailored to my own tastes.
dirty_score
Posts: 612
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#1471

Post by dirty_score »

Alternative Press 20 Guilty Pleasure Horror Movies That True Genre Fans Will Love

and @mighty: I don't know if you accept thesis but I think this might be an interesting reading: Gynaehorror: Women, theory and horror film

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Cultural Studies in the University of Canterbury by Erin Harrington.

Then, it became a book: Women, Monstrosity and Horror Film: Gynaehorror (Film Philosophy at the Margins)
Post Reply