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)
ICMForum Manager Cup signup
Polls: Red Planet: Essential Cinema (Results), Western (Results), 2020 (Aug 29th)
Challenges: <400, Korean, Action/Adventure

Official lists updates

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 5897
Joined: June 3rd, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

#4241

Post by Fergenaprido »

Apu wrote: June 8th, 2021, 9:15 pm The original 1974 version, of course.

I don't mind going through the book, it's great fun.
Okay, cool. There were a couple other versions floating around.

How does the original version compare to the pdf: https://monoskop.org/File:Vogel_Amos_Fi ... ve_Art.pdf ?
That's the copy I've been combing through.

Glad you're enjoying the read, anyway. I also found it surprisingly interesting when I started to go through it; I didn't think it would be a subject I would enjoy that much.
🧚‍♂️🦫
Apu
Posts: 143
Joined: June 24th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4242

Post by Apu »

It's extremely similar (probably the identical content). However, that pdf is without an index of films and directors A-Z.

Vogel on Soft Rain (this I pasted from the pdf, but, again, this is identical to the 1974 version):

The primary characteristic of most minimal cinema is the use
of a fixed camera photographing real time. In Ken Jacobs'
Soft Rain (1969), a camera "stares" out of a window onto a
street for about nine minutes (actually, a three-minute
segment repeated three times); nothing is staged; there is
no editing, no camera movement; reality flows by, Zen-like,
and is recorded. The image is mostly still, except for a few
cars and pedestrians; these become events. There is no
aesthetic reason for the film to last nine minutes instead
of ninety; its "form" is the unstructured matrix of reality.
Apu
Posts: 143
Joined: June 24th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4243

Post by Apu »

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/amos ... +1974/apu/

I propose to add these 9 films to the official Vogel list:

Ivan the Terrible Part 2 (page 34)
The Boston Strangler (page 78)
Prune. Flat. (page 82)
Soft Rain (1969) (page 100)
Hortobágy (1937) (page 262)
The Pawnbroker (page 283)
Martin Luther (1953) (page 283)
La Strada (page 283)
La grande bouffe (page 297)

Feel free to copy the list above (I'll make it private eventually). It would be preferable to have the Vogel list sorted after chapters (as in 500 Essential Cult Movies) rather than alphabetical.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 34206
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#4244

Post by joachimt »

Fergy, maybe we should let Apu finish the whole book and just copy his list in his proposed order. Since he's enjoying this and doing it thoroughly, no need for you to redo it later. I trust Apu's judgement. And I agree with him about the order of the list.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
Apu
Posts: 143
Joined: June 24th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4245

Post by Apu »

Thanks. And yeah, I'm done with the whole book.

What originally annoyed me - and made me want to go through the whole book - was the fact that the icm list had fewer than 600 entries which didn't seem right. On wiki and elsewhere it says: "Film as a Subversive Art is a fully illustrated 1974 film history book by Amos Vogel with mini-essays on over 600 films" - and the list on LB also has over 600 films: https://letterboxd.com/htshell/list/fil ... lete-list/

It should also be specified that the icm list is the original 1974 version since there are later, translated versions with a few additional films (with possibly a few drop-offs).
Last edited by Apu on June 9th, 2021, 5:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 34206
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#4246

Post by joachimt »

Ah, nice, I thought you were only halfway or so. Misread I guess. Waiting for Fergy to agree before I go ahead and update.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 5897
Joined: June 3rd, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

#4247

Post by Fergenaprido »

Thanks Apu. Could you give me a few days? I'll have time to look at this more closely on the weekend.
🧚‍♂️🦫
Apu
Posts: 143
Joined: June 24th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4248

Post by Apu »

Sure thing.
Apu
Posts: 143
Joined: June 24th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4249

Post by Apu »

I noticed that the letterboxd list version included Jess Franco's Nachts, wenn Dracula erwacht (1970). That film's title isn't explicitly mentioned in the book, nor is Franco's name. However, Vogel certainly refers to Franco's version in his mini-essay on Cuadecuc, vampir (1971): "A most original work, A hallucinatory montage of unfinished, non-consecutive fragments of scenes photographed on the set of a new Spanish version of Dracula, this sophisticated homage to the vampire film genre transmutes its visual data into a new poetic reality".

I don't think Nachts, wenn Dracula erwacht should be included. Thoughts?
User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 667
Joined: May 3rd, 2013, 6:00 am
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#4250

Post by Harco »

Harco wrote: May 31st, 2021, 3:02 pm F9 and Zhang Yimou's Cliff Walkers will become official when Joachim updates the ATWWBO list.
The next update will see Chinese Zodiac drop off (it will also become unofficial), while A Quiet Place Part II will enter the list.
:ICM: | :letbxd:
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 34206
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#4251

Post by joachimt »

Harco wrote: June 13th, 2021, 2:37 pm
Harco wrote: May 31st, 2021, 3:02 pm F9 and Zhang Yimou's Cliff Walkers will become official when Joachim updates the ATWWBO list.
The next update will see Chinese Zodiac drop off (it will also become unofficial), while A Quiet Place Part II will enter the list.
Done
https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/a+q ... e+part+ii/
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 11836
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#4252

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

New addition to the Eureka MoC list; Johnny Guitar (1954)
User avatar
Quartoxuma
Posts: 152
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4253

Post by Quartoxuma »

A bit frustrating to see work being done on the Amos list after I pushed for it repeatedly and set up this spreadsheet to compare both the American and the German version. I suggested to discuss whether Amos name-dropping a film really warrants an inclusion. He has dedicated sections for most of the films and film stills. Last I checked the consensus was to add both the film stills and the films with their own section, but to omit the films that were only mentioned in passing. My frustration started with 'The Second n Command' which is not on the list and even the film that he mentioned isn't really important.


Last september I wrote:
It seems, that the entry for The Second in Command 1 is wrong since I could not find any mention of it in the book. There is indeed a passing sentence about a film called “The Second Coming” which from the phrasing I assume Vogel never watched. It does not have a IMDb link but apparently the director was William Adler which might explain the confusion (similar name, similar director name, same year). I would suggest removing the film from the list.

Going by this example I feel a bit reluctant about how meaningful the implementation of this list really is. Vogel has several sections where he lists the movies he deems essential (my wording) and I wouldn’t necessarily add films to a list just because he mentions them once in a half sentence.
I then went on to post several images of the book, comb through the PDF that is floating around and the print version I have and asked for some input. Both in the official forum as well as here in the Amos Vogel thread.

I would love this list to be set right, but it is kinda frustrating to see these small changes when I was told before that the little change I asked for could only be done if we go though the whole book. I went trough it all and nothing really happened. My original proposal was to just remove 'The Second in Command', but here we are now...

Link to the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing


Edit: @Apu: This isn't to say that I don't appreciate the work you put into this. If we look at all the information we have collected and collectively decide which version, which films etc. we will all be better off.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 34206
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#4254

Post by joachimt »

Sorry for the small changes I applied recently, Quartoxuma. That's was bad judgement on my side. When you were posting about this, I wasn't following the conversation closely enough, too busy back then. I should have left this to Fergy who promised to do it thoroughly. I appreciate your effort and I agree with you that together, including, Apu and you, we should come to a consensus.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
Apu
Posts: 143
Joined: June 24th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4255

Post by Apu »

The thing is that there are plenty of films that are just mentioned in passing that are indeed included in other lists such as Time Out's 1000 Films to Change Your Life. Sometimes a director's filmography or all the films the filmmaker directed during a few years in their career are all mentioned very castually in just one sentence. So we really should be consistent about this. If we do remove all titles that Vogel only mentions in the passing, then there are at least 20-30 titles (a rough estimate) or so that should be removed from the Time Out 1000 list.

When it comes to The Second in Command you do have a valid point. Vogel never explicitly mentions the title (just as he never mentions Nachts, wenn Dracula erwacht) but he clearly is referring to a film directed by William Adler done in 1915 (in fact, Adler is the film's cinematographer and Vogel got that film's title slightly wrong). However, there are a few other examples where Vogel refers to certain (non-English language) films by their more obscure alternative titles (sometimes literal translations of the original title) and not by the title(s) that we today are much more accustomed to.

Also, when it comes to Otto Muehl's Der geile Wotan (The Lascivious Wotan), there is a still of Muehl and two others in some sort of nazi performance "AKTION SS AND STAR OF DAVID from THE LASCIVIOUS WOTAN" which has got nothing to do with the actual short Der geile Wotan.
User avatar
Quartoxuma
Posts: 152
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4256

Post by Quartoxuma »

Apu wrote: June 25th, 2021, 11:03 am The thing is that there are plenty of films that are just mentioned in passing that are indeed included in other lists such as Time Out's 1000 Films to Change Your Life. Sometimes a director's filmography or all the films the filmmaker directed during a few years in their career are all mentioned very castually in just one sentence. So we really should be consistent about this. If we do remove all titles that Vogel only mentions in the passing, then there are at least 20-30 titles (a rough estimate) or so that should be removed from the Time Out 1000 list.

When it comes to The Second in Command you do have a valid point. Vogel never explicitly mentions the title (just as he never mentions Nachts, wenn Dracula erwacht) but he clearly is referring to a film directed by William Adler done in 1915 (in fact, Adler is the film's cinematographer and Vogel got that film's title slightly wrong). However, there are a few other examples where Vogel refers to certain (non-English language) films by their more obscure alternative titles (sometimes literal translations of the original title) and not by the title(s) that we today are much more accustomed to.

Also, when it comes to Otto Muehl's Der geile Wotan (The Lascivious Wotan), there is a still of Muehl and two others in some sort of nazi performance "AKTION SS AND STAR OF DAVID from THE LASCIVIOUS WOTAN" which has got nothing to do with the actual short Der geile Wotan.
I don’t get your example. Which list is comprised of films that weren’t intended by the author(s) to be part of that list? Amos Vogel wanted to write a compendium of the subversive art film. He then mentions that there might be a film that had a very early occurrence of a moving camera. His wording makes it seem like he never watched that movie. Why would we argue that this film is part of his canon? By that logic, we would have to add hundreds of movies to the list „1001 Movies you have to see before you die“ since the entries often reference other works of the director.

Edit: either way I think the list is a mess and has many edge cases. I am not a fan of adding every film imaginable, but I would like to hear some other opinions and find some consensus.
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 1891
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Location: FL
Contact:

#4257

Post by kongs_speech »

Quartoxuma wrote: June 25th, 2021, 8:11 pm
Apu wrote: June 25th, 2021, 11:03 am The thing is that there are plenty of films that are just mentioned in passing that are indeed included in other lists such as Time Out's 1000 Films to Change Your Life. Sometimes a director's filmography or all the films the filmmaker directed during a few years in their career are all mentioned very castually in just one sentence. So we really should be consistent about this. If we do remove all titles that Vogel only mentions in the passing, then there are at least 20-30 titles (a rough estimate) or so that should be removed from the Time Out 1000 list.

When it comes to The Second in Command you do have a valid point. Vogel never explicitly mentions the title (just as he never mentions Nachts, wenn Dracula erwacht) but he clearly is referring to a film directed by William Adler done in 1915 (in fact, Adler is the film's cinematographer and Vogel got that film's title slightly wrong). However, there are a few other examples where Vogel refers to certain (non-English language) films by their more obscure alternative titles (sometimes literal translations of the original title) and not by the title(s) that we today are much more accustomed to.

Also, when it comes to Otto Muehl's Der geile Wotan (The Lascivious Wotan), there is a still of Muehl and two others in some sort of nazi performance "AKTION SS AND STAR OF DAVID from THE LASCIVIOUS WOTAN" which has got nothing to do with the actual short Der geile Wotan.
I don’t get your example. Which list is comprised of films that weren’t intended by the author(s) to be part of that list? Amos Vogel wanted to write a compendium of the subversive art film. He then mentions that there might be a film that had a very early occurrence of a moving camera. His wording makes it seem like he never watched that movie. Why would we argue that this film is part of his canon? By that logic, we would have to add hundreds of movies to the list „1001 Movies you have to see before you die“ since the entries often reference other works of the director.

Edit: either way I think the list is a mess and has many edge cases. I am not a fan of adding every film imaginable, but I would like to hear some other opinions and find some consensus.
This is a good post with which I agree.
🏳️‍⚧️
Quartoxuma wrote: A deeply human, life-affirming disgusting check whore.
Image
User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 5897
Joined: June 3rd, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

#4258

Post by Fergenaprido »

Quartoxuma wrote: June 25th, 2021, 8:11 pm Edit: either way I think the list is a mess and has many edge cases.
The best summary of the Vogel list thus far :D

This is still on my radar, I just haven't managed to set aside the time to pick up where I left off. I'm a perfectionist and very detail-oriented, so it will take some time, but I do aim to finish before the summer is out. I have a bunch of other things going on right now as well, though (some of which should hopefully wrap up at the end of June).
🧚‍♂️🦫
Apu
Posts: 143
Joined: June 24th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4259

Post by Apu »

Losey's Blind Date and Hell Drivers (among a few other movies in other sections) should then be removed from Time Out's 1000 Films to Change Your Life. This because the essay which casually mentions these films in the book is only really about Losey's The Criminal.

We could come to a consensus however in only including the films that Vogel himself find subversive (i.e. the subversive art film), but then that really should be stressed and be made clear in the description. This means we have to remove a bunch of films from the list including The Second in Command & Love Story.
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 9750
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#4260

Post by xianjiro »

joachimt wrote: June 25th, 2021, 8:47 am Sorry for the small changes I applied recently, Quartoxuma. That's was bad judgement on my side. When you were posting about this, I wasn't following the conversation closely enough, too busy back then. I should have left this to Fergy who promised to do it thoroughly. I appreciate your effort and I agree with you that together, including, Apu and you, we should come to a consensus.
:thumbsup: +1 to each working on the Vogel list :cheers:
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 9750
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#4261

Post by xianjiro »

Quartoxuma wrote: June 25th, 2021, 8:11 pm Edit: either way I think the list is a mess and has many edge cases. I am not a fan of adding every film imaginable, but I would like to hear some other opinions and find some consensus.
I'm not a fan of adding everything an author mentions in a book or article to a list. For example, if the author writes a paragraph or section about Film X and at the end says, "Film X does a much better job of ... than the much more famous Film Y," it hardly seems appropriate to add Film Y to the list IMO. I realize that mentions can be much greyer - we dealt with the on the Film Comedy list and the three pornos that are included, since, why would anyone expect to find straight-up porn on a comedy list, but the titles were clearly mentioned to illustrate the author's point.

Another hypothetical example would be: "I feel Director X's best five films are: 1, 2 .. 5. Clearly Film 6 and Film 9 are extremely popular and widely loved by audiences of all ages. I too enjoy Film 6 and was thrilled when my daughter found Film 9 at a sleep-over birthday party with her friends." Okay, clearly Films 6 & 9 get more text, but they are mentioned as a rebuttal to anticipated criticism and they aren't mentioned as part of the main thesis of the director's "best five films." Thus I would NOT include Films 6 & 9 in a listing of directors' five best films.

These seem like pretty clear examples and I'm certain the actual texts get much murkier. The mods have set criteria and it's likely those criteria can and need to be applied to some of the older lists that are derived from books and such. I'll leave the details to them.
User avatar
Quartoxuma
Posts: 152
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4262

Post by Quartoxuma »

Fergenaprido wrote: June 25th, 2021, 8:49 pm
Quartoxuma wrote: June 25th, 2021, 8:11 pm Edit: either way I think the list is a mess and has many edge cases.
The best summary of the Vogel list thus far :D

This is still on my radar, I just haven't managed to set aside the time to pick up where I left off. I'm a perfectionist and very detail-oriented, so it will take some time, but I do aim to finish before the summer is out. I have a bunch of other things going on right now as well, though (some of which should hopefully wrap up at the end of June).
No worries. I appreciate you taking the time. When I went through it, there were so many inconsistencies within each version and some more between the versions. This list has been in a weird state for quite some time.

There used to be a website where someone transferred the content of the book. That was used to create a PDF and this is the main source for practically every information floating around the web. I think there was probably some kind of register with every movie named and thus this version of the list was created.

@Apu: I can't really speak to your example since I don't know that list well. In the end, I don't think consistency across the whole platform ICM is really that important. To me, each list has to be judged independently. What did the author/s try to convey? What is the canon they want to frame? For me in this case it is critical to understand what Vogel wanted to accomplish. He wanted to demonstrate how film uses the tools of subversion to create shock and terror in the viewer and undermine held beliefs. When it comes to other lists, maybe there needs to be a discussion about them as well. I am not too interested in those 1000+ film lists and would rather see smaller lists with a more concise theme. Vogels list is in that sense magical to me, as he often picks the non obvious choices (some of them have gathered next to no interest over the last 50 years).

I'd much rather have 'Vase de noces' on the list, which Vogel clearly embraced as part of his canon (though not in the first published version) than 'Deep Throat' which he memorized as being
unique in no respect except for the impossible anatomical talents of its star, Linda Lovelace (there has never been deeper penetration anywhere)
(Pervy Amos at his best)

This is what Vogel had to say in the second edition about 'Vase de notes' (my translation):
A young farmhand and a hog. Tenderness, Lust, Copulation. The birth of piglets, which the man lovingly raises and slaughters, triggering the hog's suicide. The man, who from every so often produces, cooks and eats his feces (in front of the camera) tries to kill himself by self-burial, but fails despite the invading ants. Hereon he hangs himself and by some miracle ascends into heaven. No dialogue, just the sounds of nature, salaciousness, defecation, Monteverdi, Perotinus.
At the core of this significant, deeply human film, profoundly disturbing to most, lies a scandalous, tragic assertion of great poetic virtue and originality - a sensitive tribute to the outsider, an anthem for fortune and affirmation of life. Only those, who have no eyes to see, will be unable to recognize the deep moral duty of this work.

Full quote for 'Mona' where he mentions 'Deep Throat':
The incursion of hardcore sex into the commercial film market has brought with it the elevation of one of the most common, most lusted-after and most "forbidden" sex acts -- fellatio -- to the status of a profitable commodity. A 1972 newcomer to the scene, Gerard Damiano's Deep Throat, turned a $24,000 production budget (three days shooting in motel rooms) into a multi-million dollar profit that increased every time the police or would-be censors went after it without (at least initially) succeeding. However while this latter film -- now world-famous as the prototype of "fellatio" films -- is unique in no respect except for the impossible anatomical talents of its star, Linda Lovelace (there has never been deeper penetration anywhere) -- Mona must be recorded as the pioneer and in every respect a superior work.
In this film, unlike Deep Throat, the challenge of the topic is taken seriously and the sexual activity riveted on it, as we observe the heroine in action in bedrooms, cinemas, back yards, wherever the opportunity can be created. There is an edge of abandon and desperation to her that whets the appetite of frustrated men and helps to define the film as a commercial product, in disproportionally large demand solely because society will not freely accept human activities as human.
User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 667
Joined: May 3rd, 2013, 6:00 am
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#4263

Post by Harco »

joachimt wrote: June 16th, 2021, 5:18 pm
Harco wrote: June 13th, 2021, 2:37 pm
Harco wrote: May 31st, 2021, 3:02 pm F9 and Zhang Yimou's Cliff Walkers will become official when Joachim updates the ATWWBO list.
The next update will see Chinese Zodiac drop off (it will also become unofficial), while A Quiet Place Part II will enter the list.
Done
https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/a+q ... e+part+ii/
The next update will see Cocktail fall off, with Cruella entering.
:ICM: | :letbxd:
User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 6222
Joined: February 9th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#4264

Post by OldAle1 »

Harco wrote: July 1st, 2021, 7:46 pm
joachimt wrote: June 16th, 2021, 5:18 pm
Harco wrote: June 13th, 2021, 2:37 pm

The next update will see Chinese Zodiac drop off (it will also become unofficial), while A Quiet Place Part II will enter the list.
Done
https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/a+q ... e+part+ii/
The next update will see Cocktail fall off, with Cruella entering.
A terrible (but kind of hilarious) film being replaced by a mediocre (and not hilarious when it should be) film. Just another day in the ol' Box Office game.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 7275
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#4265

Post by Onderhond »

Nothing to get excited about, but a big upgrade nonetheless. If this keeps people from watching Cocktail, that's a big win.
User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 6222
Joined: February 9th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#4266

Post by OldAle1 »

Onderhond wrote: July 1st, 2021, 9:38 pm Nothing to get excited about, but a big upgrade nonetheless. If this keeps people from watching Cocktail, that's a big win.
Alas it's still on the all-time adjusted list and at #722, it's not going to go unofficial anytime soon. Anyway you are (as usual) too harsh, what's not to love?

Here's to the fools who dream.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 7275
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#4267

Post by Onderhond »

Apparently, this:

The plot is middling, Elisabeth Shue fails to sparkle, the drama is predictable and the soundtrack is pretty bland too.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 3568
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#4268

Post by Torgo »

Oh, look: Demon Slayer: The Movie entered the IMDb Top 250. That was bound to happen; it constantly had like an 8.7 at 10k votes, besides also being the #256 most successful movie of all time (unadjusted).
Can't say anything about it yet as I will have to watch the series, but having broken so many Box Office records, it can't be bad, right? .. Right? :$
dirty_score
Posts: 645
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4269

Post by dirty_score »

Harco wrote: July 1st, 2021, 7:46 pm The next update will see Cocktail fall off, with Cruella entering.
You can add The Conjuring 3 and something else I can't seem to find. John Wick 2 and Spies in Disguise become unnoficial.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 7275
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#4270

Post by Onderhond »

Torgo wrote: July 4th, 2021, 11:40 pm Can't say anything about it yet as I will have to watch the series, but having broken so many Box Office records, it can't be bad, right? .. Right? :$
It's decent enough and easy to follow without having seen the series (as long as you're a bit familiar with anime tropes), but it's hardly great. Just very (very) popular, with a big of extra post-COVID hype to push it even further. That said, easily better than 75%-80% of the films in the BO lists.
dirty_score wrote: July 5th, 2021, 11:01 am You can add The Conjuring 3 and something else I can't seem to find. John Wick 2 and Spies in Disguise become unnoficial.
More good news.
User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 667
Joined: May 3rd, 2013, 6:00 am
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#4271

Post by Harco »

dirty_score wrote: July 5th, 2021, 11:01 am
Harco wrote: July 1st, 2021, 7:46 pm The next update will see Cocktail fall off, with Cruella entering.
You can add The Conjuring 3 and something else I can't seem to find. John Wick 2 and Spies in Disguise become unnoficial.
It's The Croods: A New Age (it's from 2020, that's why you probably weren't able to find it).
:ICM: | :letbxd:
User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 1143
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4272

Post by Teproc »

Yeah, I'll second Onderhond here about Demon Slayer. it's a pretty average shônen in terms of plot/themes etc., with some pretty exciting visuals at times, mixing different types of animation for some fighting elements, but that's about it. Decently crafted entertainment, essentially.
dirty_score
Posts: 645
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4273

Post by dirty_score »

Harco wrote: July 5th, 2021, 11:09 am
dirty_score wrote: July 5th, 2021, 11:01 am
Harco wrote: July 1st, 2021, 7:46 pm The next update will see Cocktail fall off, with Cruella entering.
You can add The Conjuring 3 and something else I can't seem to find. John Wick 2 and Spies in Disguise become unnoficial.
It's The Croods: A New Age (it's from 2020, that's why you probably weren't able to find it).
You're right! I only looked at the 2021 list.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 34206
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#4274

Post by joachimt »

dirty_score wrote: July 5th, 2021, 2:44 pm
Harco wrote: July 5th, 2021, 11:09 am
dirty_score wrote: July 5th, 2021, 11:01 am

You can add The Conjuring 3 and something else I can't seem to find. John Wick 2 and Spies in Disguise become unnoficial.
It's The Croods: A New Age (it's from 2020, that's why you probably weren't able to find it).
You're right! I only looked at the 2021 list.
The Croods 2 only premiered here a few days ago.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
jmarasco
Posts: 14
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4275

Post by jmarasco »

We discussed this a while back, but never reached a consensus - the wrong version of Scenes from a Marriage is still listed on the TSPDT list. The website lists the 168-min theatrical version but the ICM list has the 283-minute miniseries version. From the website listing:

457. (434) SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE (Ingmar Bergman, 1973, Sweden, 168m, Col)

IMDB converted the theatrical version entry to the miniseries, and added a new entry for the theatrical version, so the case to keep the miniseries version on TSPDT was that people had already checked & voted on the original entry. But those original checks and votes are all on the wrong entry now, thanks to the rug pull by IMDB. Seems like we should correct the list and let folks update their checks themselves.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 34206
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#4276

Post by joachimt »

I agree. Other mods?
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
monk-time
Posts: 1492
Joined: March 23rd, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4277

Post by monk-time »

Huh? Seems like everything's fine as it is. The miniseries is on the TSPDT list on ICM right now, and I don't think this should change. It's obviously the preferred version of the work, and I'm sure all TSPDT sources that listed it referred to the miniseries and not to the theatrical version. '168m' bit on the TSPDT site looks more like an error that should just be ignored.
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 26020
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4278

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

joachimt wrote: July 6th, 2021, 11:02 am I agree. Other mods?
I guess this is not an issue that procrastination will magically fix, so I guess so.
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 4832
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#4279

Post by flavo5000 »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: July 6th, 2021, 1:53 pm
joachimt wrote: July 6th, 2021, 11:02 am I agree. Other mods?
I guess this is not an issue that procrastination will magically fix, so I guess so.
Makes sense to me. The TSPDT site does clearly list the 168 min. version.
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 26020
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#4280

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

I don't think TSPDT makes a distinction between the two and just lists the most commonly cited runtime. I think whatever choice we make should take into account that TSPDT could change what runtime they list at any time. But for a combined entry like that I guess it makes most sense to list the film version as default.
Post Reply