Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Polls: Directors (Results), 2019 (Feb 16th), Mini-series (Feb 29th), 2009 awards (Mar 3rd), Favorite Movies (Mar 21st), Doubling the Canon (Mar ??)
Challenges: Academy Awards, Africa, African American/Blaxploitation
Film of the Week: Doa al karawan, March nominations (Feb 28th)
World Cup S4: Round 1 schedule, 1D: Australia vs Hungary vs Portugal vs Tajikistan (Mar 1st), 1E: Czechia vs France vs Georgia vs Mexico (Mar 18th)

Official lists updates

Post Reply
User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10613
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

Re: Official lists updates

#2481

Post by funkybusiness » January 9th, 2020, 12:32 am

joachim! I need Mario Maker 2! Give me my Switch back!

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 7660
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#2482

Post by maxwelldeux » January 9th, 2020, 12:41 am

funkybusiness wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 12:32 am
joachim! I need Mario Maker 2! Give me my Switch back!
Here you go.

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10613
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#2483

Post by funkybusiness » January 9th, 2020, 12:44 am

maxwelldeux wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 12:41 am
funkybusiness wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 12:32 am
joachim! I need Mario Maker 2! Give me my Switch back!
Here you go.
thank you but I was referring to this.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7065
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2484

Post by xianjiro » January 9th, 2020, 1:41 am

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
January 8th, 2020, 6:17 pm
Teproc wrote:
January 8th, 2020, 11:13 am
Well, I think it's not so much that critics have "less backbone" (whatever that's supposed to mean) as much as the date RT gets for current films is impossible to compare with what they get for older films, for obvious reasons. I assume the number of reviews is a factor in what gets on that list, and older films obviously can't compete since RT doesn't go back and use reviews from the day in their database.
That's certainly part of it, but it can't account for all of it since most of the films dropping were older films and there are only 7 films from 2009 to 2014 and only one film from 1983 to 2008. Their score adjustment is definitely too aggressive, but from looking at their yearly lists there are also a lot more 90+ consensus films the last few years than even the early 2010s.
Is their year-end list somehow different or special? I get that it isn't a best of 2019 like the Cahiers yearly list, but from what folks have been saying, the update doesn't sound much like the yearly updates of something like 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. So, for example, IMDb does a year-end Top 250 (2019 hasn't been added to the website yet, but 2018 can be found here: it doesn't have a description, but earlier years say something like "This is the IMDb Top 250 as of December 31st, midnight PST, 2013". So, literally, they are taking a snapshot of the Top 250 at a given point in time and publishing that as opposed to trying to compile some sort of list that reflects the state of the Top 250 over the course of the year. (Hope that makes sense to everyone.)

I've never really delved much into Rotten Tomatoes though have occasionally followed a link to the website: it just didn't strike me as anything that would be of much use to me personally. Only mention this to illustrate that I'm not very familiar with the inner working beyond the fact that they try to aggregate both professional reviews and user feedback.

But I've found PA's original statement pretty spot on: the data does suggest that we're in a golden age - sort of how some describe the year 1939 in Hollywood. I'm not willing to fight over the fact, but I can't say anything really stands out for me in the recent past as greatest of the great. When I sort the list by year, I see lots of very popular movies (ie things also on the box office lists or awards lists) and at best a handful of titles that I think people might look back on 20 or 50 years from now, but that handful is being generous. I don't believe more than a couple (of the 50 released 2014-2019) will ultimately make a best 100 films of the first half of the 21st Century type list. Maybe best 1000 ...

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7065
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2485

Post by xianjiro » January 9th, 2020, 1:59 am

One other thought on reviews to add to the mix: wonder how much corporate interests are affecting movie reviews. When I read something like "they are all saying the same thing" or "they hit the same points", my reaction is always that it sounds like someone working off a press release.

Between the number of films in circulation and nowadays, I assume, the number of discs hitting this or that reviewers mailbox, anyone would be hard pressed to watch everything and write a meaningful critique so of course someone sorts and prioritizes. But what happens from there? Could a given reviewer say yes to those three and give this stack to the interns?

With so much media owned by large corporations, its entirely possible that Holding Company X has subsidiaries that engage in production and distribution while also owning other media outlets such as magazines, newspapers, websites, TV stations, etc. It certainly is conceivable that HCX tells the in-house reviewers/critics that work in the 'news' divisions to prioritize releases from their production and distribution subsidiaries. While maybe stretching journalistic standards a bit, this probably wouldn't be interpreted as breaching the managerial/editorial divide too radically. But less ethical, more profit driven enterprises might go a step further and warn an 'in-house' critic against trashing releases under certain labels. Further down the slope, another might tell reviewers to provide only positive spin to in-house pictures and negative to competition.

Can't say I know this to be a fact, but I know how the media works. It is a possible explanation that doesn't even rise to the level of conspiracy theory (yet).

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 7660
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#2486

Post by maxwelldeux » January 9th, 2020, 5:47 am

funkybusiness wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 12:44 am
maxwelldeux wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 12:41 am
funkybusiness wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 12:32 am
joachim! I need Mario Maker 2! Give me my Switch back!
Here you go.
thank you but I was referring to this.
My apologies. Could have sworn it was this.

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10613
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#2487

Post by funkybusiness » January 9th, 2020, 6:32 am

maxwelldeux wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 5:47 am
funkybusiness wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 12:44 am
maxwelldeux wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 12:41 am

Here you go.
thank you but I was referring to this.
My apologies. Could have sworn it was this.
Oh, yes, that's right, that's what he took. joachim, give it back, now, please.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3347
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2488

Post by Onderhond » January 9th, 2020, 8:23 am

xianjiro wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 1:59 am
Can't say I know this to be a fact, but I know how the media works. It is a possible explanation that doesn't even rise to the level of conspiracy theory (yet).
Or the more blatant option: film critics don't get invites to screenings anymore after trashing too many films from a certain production company. Which is problematic as the publication they work for expect a review for the top-billed new releases of course.

And unless you make it your shtick, standing out from the crowd isn't really appreciated within film communities either. People are rarely very open to opinions that differ from the intersubjective truth, so publications (who don't care about film reviews apart from the readers they bring) will probably screen for writers with normative tastes.

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10613
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#2489

Post by funkybusiness » January 9th, 2020, 9:04 am

Onderhond wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 8:23 am
xianjiro wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 1:59 am
Can't say I know this to be a fact, but I know how the media works. It is a possible explanation that doesn't even rise to the level of conspiracy theory (yet).
Or the more blatant option: film critics don't get invites to screenings anymore after trashing too many films from a certain production company. Which is problematic as the publication they work for expect a review for the top-billed new releases of course.
and it doesn't help that one company is responsible for 40% of all major theatrical releases.

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6668
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#2490

Post by albajos » January 9th, 2020, 9:12 am

I have no idea what totalitarian countries you live in but we have freedom of the press, so everone see those movies together. If there is an embargo, then no critics get to see it, no one is hand picked.

Image

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7065
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2491

Post by xianjiro » January 9th, 2020, 9:55 am

Onderhond wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 8:23 am
xianjiro wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 1:59 am
Can't say I know this to be a fact, but I know how the media works. It is a possible explanation that doesn't even rise to the level of conspiracy theory (yet).
Or the more blatant option: film critics don't get invites to screenings anymore after trashing too many films from a certain production company. Which is problematic as the publication they work for expect a review for the top-billed new releases of course.

And unless you make it your shtick, standing out from the crowd isn't really appreciated within film communities either. People are rarely very open to opinions that differ from the intersubjective truth, so publications (who don't care about film reviews apart from the readers they bring) will probably screen for writers with normative tastes.
good points though I'd add that standing out from the crowd isn't really appreciated in most communities - unless it's one of those be different like everyone else groups B)

but the underlying theme really is that the media is no longer free of financial considerations and as you've pointed out, it can be someone keeping score - likewise, too many 'unfair' negative reviews might make it easier to send screeners elsewhere

consolidation of the media industry doesn't really help on any front

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 134
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#2492

Post by Darth Nevets » January 9th, 2020, 4:09 pm

xianjiro wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 9:55 am
Onderhond wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 8:23 am
xianjiro wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 1:59 am
Can't say I know this to be a fact, but I know how the media works. It is a possible explanation that doesn't even rise to the level of conspiracy theory (yet).
Or the more blatant option: film critics don't get invites to screenings anymore after trashing too many films from a certain production company. Which is problematic as the publication they work for expect a review for the top-billed new releases of course.

And unless you make it your shtick, standing out from the crowd isn't really appreciated within film communities either. People are rarely very open to opinions that differ from the intersubjective truth, so publications (who don't care about film reviews apart from the readers they bring) will probably screen for writers with normative tastes.
good points though I'd add that standing out from the crowd isn't really appreciated in most communities - unless it's one of those be different like everyone else groups B)

but the underlying theme really is that the media is no longer free of financial considerations and as you've pointed out, it can be someone keeping score - likewise, too many 'unfair' negative reviews might make it easier to send screeners elsewhere

consolidation of the media industry doesn't really help on any front
Yet most of the new reviewers aren't part of the corporate hegemony, which hilariously includes all the major studios, but a groundswell of the blogosphere. They happen to see the movies that interest them thus producing softer reviews than say someone watching Cats after racing across LA after Skywalker (true story that's how they tried to dissuade reviewers from getting them done on time). Studios almost never let screeners go out, usually for press (dying fans) or for Oscars (which they are also phasing out). The only time are extreme exceptions, Roger Ebert was gifted screeners due to his massively declining health and supreme status for instance. You have the problem exactly backwards, wherein a grassroots campaign exists to thwart elitist access critics by supplying reviews from the common person is the cause of these results. The negative reviews are basically far more likely to be from the established old school print journalists.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7065
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2493

Post by xianjiro » January 9th, 2020, 9:01 pm

Darth Nevets wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 4:09 pm

Yet most of the new reviewers aren't part of the corporate hegemony, which hilariously includes all the major studios, but a groundswell of the blogosphere. They happen to see the movies that interest them thus producing softer reviews than say someone watching Cats after racing across LA after Skywalker (true story that's how they tried to dissuade reviewers from getting them done on time). Studios almost never let screeners go out, usually for press (dying fans) or for Oscars (which they are also phasing out). The only time are extreme exceptions, Roger Ebert was gifted screeners due to his massively declining health and supreme status for instance. You have the problem exactly backwards, wherein a grassroots campaign exists to thwart elitist access critics by supplying reviews from the common person is the cause of these results. The negative reviews are basically far more likely to be from the established old school print journalists.
Back to the original part of the discussion - does Rotten Tomatoes scour the web looking for blog posts that review movies or does it follow established reviewers?

Either way, manipulation is clearly playing a part and our earlier question was how is this affecting the Best of Rotten Tomatoes list which has skewed heavily towards the last half decade.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 134
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#2494

Post by Darth Nevets » January 9th, 2020, 9:43 pm

xianjiro wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 9:01 pm
Darth Nevets wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 4:09 pm

Yet most of the new reviewers aren't part of the corporate hegemony, which hilariously includes all the major studios, but a groundswell of the blogosphere. They happen to see the movies that interest them thus producing softer reviews than say someone watching Cats after racing across LA after Skywalker (true story that's how they tried to dissuade reviewers from getting them done on time). Studios almost never let screeners go out, usually for press (dying fans) or for Oscars (which they are also phasing out). The only time are extreme exceptions, Roger Ebert was gifted screeners due to his massively declining health and supreme status for instance. You have the problem exactly backwards, wherein a grassroots campaign exists to thwart elitist access critics by supplying reviews from the common person is the cause of these results. The negative reviews are basically far more likely to be from the established old school print journalists.
Back to the original part of the discussion - does Rotten Tomatoes scour the web looking for blog posts that review movies or does it follow established reviewers?

Either way, manipulation is clearly playing a part and our earlier question was how is this affecting the Best of Rotten Tomatoes list which has skewed heavily towards the last half decade.
The rationale is very difficult to ascertain in this current media landscape. When RT first got started it only used print sources it acquired physically and of course by the early 2000's they could actually link to the now online reviews. However massive changes to the American culture especially in the print landscape has caused seizures no one can quite predict. Many newspapers have folded (and others can't pay full time critics) and many critics now work outside that traditional local paper medium (and others from the traditional now freelancing). To many of those new critics access is a cancer keeping them from doing a fair job and giving a gift to reviewers who don't even enjoy movies a free ride. They feel they have to build an audience and reputation and pay their own way. Now RT can't ignore a significant source of critique, and thus has to determine whose reviews are included a complex and difficult process of application is used. This results in the Singapore Times and youtuber Chris Stuckman getting in but not say The Baltimore Sun because of their editorial board.

Since these people are independent they only tend to watch what they want to watch or major releases. Even Disney has to invite these people to premieres because enemies are easily made. This can cause mass disparities in the score. In general however the claim that critics can be bought is laughable. The most buyable are not the corporate paper types who tend to hire highbrow reviewers, but the struggling outfit that can't afford to send someone to a major city to see a foreign film in one theater. Its the opposite of your impression, nothing you believe is as it seems I'm afraid. Traditionally in RT major releases never made the top 100 because critics tend to have a major bias against them, a world in which they get a pass critically is utterly alien.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7065
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2495

Post by xianjiro » January 9th, 2020, 10:30 pm

Darth Nevets wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 9:43 pm
xianjiro wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 9:01 pm
Darth Nevets wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 4:09 pm

Yet most of the new reviewers aren't part of the corporate hegemony, which hilariously includes all the major studios, but a groundswell of the blogosphere. They happen to see the movies that interest them thus producing softer reviews than say someone watching Cats after racing across LA after Skywalker (true story that's how they tried to dissuade reviewers from getting them done on time). Studios almost never let screeners go out, usually for press (dying fans) or for Oscars (which they are also phasing out). The only time are extreme exceptions, Roger Ebert was gifted screeners due to his massively declining health and supreme status for instance. You have the problem exactly backwards, wherein a grassroots campaign exists to thwart elitist access critics by supplying reviews from the common person is the cause of these results. The negative reviews are basically far more likely to be from the established old school print journalists.
Back to the original part of the discussion - does Rotten Tomatoes scour the web looking for blog posts that review movies or does it follow established reviewers?

Either way, manipulation is clearly playing a part and our earlier question was how is this affecting the Best of Rotten Tomatoes list which has skewed heavily towards the last half decade.
The rationale is very difficult to ascertain in this current media landscape. When RT first got started it only used print sources it acquired physically and of course by the early 2000's they could actually link to the now online reviews. However massive changes to the American culture especially in the print landscape has caused seizures no one can quite predict. Many newspapers have folded (and others can't pay full time critics) and many critics now work outside that traditional local paper medium (and others from the traditional now freelancing). To many of those new critics access is a cancer keeping them from doing a fair job and giving a gift to reviewers who don't even enjoy movies a free ride. They feel they have to build an audience and reputation and pay their own way. Now RT can't ignore a significant source of critique, and thus has to determine whose reviews are included a complex and difficult process of application is used. This results in the Singapore Times and youtuber Chris Stuckman getting in but not say The Baltimore Sun because of their editorial board.

Since these people are independent they only tend to watch what they want to watch or major releases. Even Disney has to invite these people to premieres because enemies are easily made. This can cause mass disparities in the score. In general however the claim that critics can be bought is laughable. The most buyable are not the corporate paper types who tend to hire highbrow reviewers, but the struggling outfit that can't afford to send someone to a major city to see a foreign film in one theater. Its the opposite of your impression, nothing you believe is as it seems I'm afraid. Traditionally in RT major releases never made the top 100 because critics tend to have a major bias against them, a world in which they get a pass critically is utterly alien.
Thanks for the information. As I said, the distance between editorial and managerial in press has grown virtually non-existent but while I hypothesized this MIGHT have an impact on reviews, I characterized the argument as not even being a conspiracy theory. In other words, I was just sharing a hypothesis based on other information about newsrooms that might impact reviewers. "Nothing you believe is as it seems..." is a very strong statement, especially since you are classifying ideas as beliefs.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
Lakigigar
Posts: 1219
Joined: Oct 31, 2015
Location: Belgium
Contact:

#2496

Post by Lakigigar » January 10th, 2020, 12:12 am

Climax is currently 13rd in the fok! top 250 poll after 9 lists, and is almost guaranteed to enter the list by it's total of numbers, unless there is an increase of users that enter long lists, and climax doesn't gain anymore votes. The House that Jack Built might receive it's second official check.

So it will make it's first official list. Meanwhile i haven't had votes of all movies on 1 official list: Equilibrium, Il y a longtemps que je t'aime, The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Only Reconstruction and Only God Forgives has had 1 appearance in a toplist. I still expect the earthquake to happen, since the "weird taste" voters keep voting, while there are less occassional passengers votes and a bunch of new participants that moved from another forum.
SpoilerShow
1 Reservoir Dogs 1992
2 Pulp Fiction 1994
3 2001: A Space Odyssey 1968
4 Irreversible 2002
5 The Shining 1980
6 Se7en 1995
7 A Clockwork Orange 1971
8 Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo 1966
9 Apocalypse Now 1979
10 Taxi Driver 1976
11 The Neon Demon 2016
12 The Lion King 1994
13 Climax 2018
14 Monty Python and the Holy Grail 1975
15 Cidade de Deus 2002
16 The Big Lebowski 1998
17 Jagten 2012
18 The Dark Knight 2008
19 12 Angry Men 1957
20 Léon 1994
21 American Beauty 1999
22 Fight Club 1999
23 Jaws 1975
24 Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 2002
25 Black Swan 2010
26 Terminator 2: Judgment Day 1991
27 The Shawshank Redemption 1984
28 La vie d'Adèle 2013
29 C'era una volta il West 1968
30 Grave 2017
31 The Godfather 1972
32 American History X 1998
33 Drive 2011
34 Magnolia 1999
35 Vertigo 1958
36 The Departed 2006
37 Enter The Void 2009
38 Bom Yeoreum Gaeul Gyeoul Geurigo Bom 2003
39 Whiplash 2014
40 Interstellar 2014
41 The Exorcist 1973
42 The House that Jack Built 2017
43 In Bruges 2009
44 Paris, Texas 1984
45 Eyes Wide Shut 1999
46 Casablanca 1942
47 Before Sunrise 1995
48 Das Leben der Anderen 2006
49 Mulholland Dr. 2001
50 Spring Breakers 2012
I might edit my entry to enter points for Apocalypse Now as i've just seen it for the very first time and it's a great movie, although difficult and complex so i need more watches to fully comprehend it.

Still Reservoir Dogs in the lead

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 134
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#2497

Post by Darth Nevets » January 10th, 2020, 4:00 am

xianjiro wrote:
January 9th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Thanks for the information. As I said, the distance between editorial and managerial in press has grown virtually non-existent but while I hypothesized this MIGHT have an impact on reviews, I characterized the argument as not even being a conspiracy theory. In other words, I was just sharing a hypothesis based on other information about newsrooms that might impact reviewers. "Nothing you believe is as it seems..." is a very strong statement, especially since you are classifying ideas as beliefs.
Good point. It is a problem to strongly make such inferences on my part. Of course its hard to understand a place without firsthand knowledge. I discovered RT in 2003 when EGM noted House of the Dead was the lowest rated movie ever based on its 0% and the large number of reviews. I spent many years there in the forums and checking the site. Corporate consolidation is a huge problem, but it can be hard to analyze the ways it can badly hurt culture (hey Euros ask me about how bad US healthcare is and I'll lay a shock and awe campaign).

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 7526
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#2498

Post by sol » January 10th, 2020, 4:07 am

Lakigigar wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 12:12 am
Climax is currently 13rd in the fok! top 250 poll after 9 lists, and is almost guaranteed to enter the list by it's total of numbers, unless there is an increase of users that enter long lists, and climax doesn't gain anymore votes. The House that Jack Built might receive it's second official check.
Thanks for the update. I have thought about joining the site to submit a list as you suggested above, but somehow that doesn't quite feel honest to me - especially given that I would need to communicate via Google Translate. Also, if I did end submitting a list, I probably wouldn't be able to stop myself giving preference to films on zero official lists as opposed to those that are actually at the top of my favourites list.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 600 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8329
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#2499

Post by Lonewolf2003 » January 10th, 2020, 10:17 am

I will submit a list for old-times sake

User avatar
Lakigigar
Posts: 1219
Joined: Oct 31, 2015
Location: Belgium
Contact:

#2500

Post by Lakigigar » January 10th, 2020, 10:56 am

sol wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 4:07 am
Lakigigar wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 12:12 am
Climax is currently 13rd in the fok! top 250 poll after 9 lists, and is almost guaranteed to enter the list by it's total of numbers, unless there is an increase of users that enter long lists, and climax doesn't gain anymore votes. The House that Jack Built might receive it's second official check.
Thanks for the update. I have thought about joining the site to submit a list as you suggested above, but somehow that doesn't quite feel honest to me - especially given that I would need to communicate via Google Translate. Also, if I did end submitting a list, I probably wouldn't be able to stop myself giving preference to films on zero official lists as opposed to those that are actually at the top of my favourites list.
You're allowed to send in a list according to me. Some of Moviemeter have did it, aand i'm afraid we won't have enough participants, but i'd prefer a list with your favourites instead of movies you want an extra official check on. Although even than it's unlikely it will happen as it has to be voted on by others of course. But to me, you're welcome.

Lonewolf2003, that would be great too!

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30651
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#2501

Post by joachimt » January 10th, 2020, 12:03 pm

I can't stop anyone, but I don't like the idea of people joining Fok just to post a list, especially if they don't plan to check out Fok anymore and extremely especially if they don't even speak the language to be part of that community. The Fok list is a list of favorite movies of the Fok community. If the votes are mostly by people from MovieMeter and icmforum who just go there to influence the titles on an official iCM list, what's the meaning of the list? I'd rather replace the Fok list with the MovieMeter favorite movies list (since the MM-community is a lot stronger than the current Fok-community), instead of having a list of just some randomly recruited people. The Fok list should be from the Fok community. If there aren't enough people there anymore, there's basically no community left that's strong enough to produce a decent list. Same happened with Filmtotaal in the past.

This is no personal attack to you, Lakigigar. I appreciate you're trying to keep the game going and I understand you're trying to get people to participate (noticed your thread on MM as well), but I really doubt this is the way to go.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
Gorro
Donator
Posts: 614
Joined: Aug 28, 2011
Contact:

#2502

Post by Gorro » January 10th, 2020, 12:50 pm

joachimt wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 12:03 pm
I can't stop anyone, but I don't like the idea of people joining Fok just to post a list, especially if they don't plan to check out Fok anymore and extremely especially if they don't even speak the language to be part of that community. The Fok list is a list of favorite movies of the Fok community. If the votes are mostly by people from MovieMeter and icmforum who just go there to influence the titles on an official iCM list, what's the meaning of the list? I'd rather replace the Fok list with the MovieMeter favorite movies list (since the MM-community is a lot stronger than the current Fok-community), instead of having a list of just some randomly recruited people. The Fok list should be from the Fok community. If there aren't enough people there anymore, there's basically no community left that's strong enough to produce a decent list. Same happened with Filmtotaal in the past.

This is no personal attack to you, Lakigigar. I appreciate you're trying to keep the game going and I understand you're trying to get people to participate (noticed your thread on MM as well), but I really doubt this is the way to go.
I share this sentiment. Having ran the poll for many years over there (from its second edition in 2003 to 2013 or so) I am the last to want to see this tradition die, but importing people from somewhere else does remove the community aspect and is not in the spirit of the list. Its rules are specifically aimed at getting the non-film-enthusiasts to participate by giving an option to submit only a top 10 for instance. My hope was always that they get invested in the list and might try watching other movies from the list and become film-enthusiasts (also the reason the Shaduw Top exists). The cleanest way to recruit people is getting a post on the frontpage of fok.nl by talking to one of the FP-crew members over there. In my years around 50% of the participants were regulars of the film section of the forum and the other 50% came from somewhere else of the site, many from the frontpage.

I will submit a list of course.

User avatar
Lakigigar
Posts: 1219
Joined: Oct 31, 2015
Location: Belgium
Contact:

#2503

Post by Lakigigar » January 10th, 2020, 1:03 pm

joachimt wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 12:03 pm
I can't stop anyone, but I don't like the idea of people joining Fok just to post a list, especially if they don't plan to check out Fok anymore and extremely especially if they don't even speak the language to be part of that community. The Fok list is a list of favorite movies of the Fok community. If the votes are mostly by people from MovieMeter and icmforum who just go there to influence the titles on an official iCM list, what's the meaning of the list? I'd rather replace the Fok list with the MovieMeter favorite movies list (since the MM-community is a lot stronger than the current Fok-community), instead of having a list of just some randomly recruited people. The Fok list should be from the Fok community. If there aren't enough people there anymore, there's basically no community left that's strong enough to produce a decent list. Same happened with Filmtotaal in the past.

This is no personal attack to you, Lakigigar. I appreciate you're trying to keep the game going and I understand you're trying to get people to participate (noticed your thread on MM as well), but I really doubt this is the way to go.
I understand. But i'm afraid of not having enough participants, but we will see. Last year, there were some people from Moviemeter who also submitted a list. I would like to get the Moviemeter top 1000 and ICM top 1000 official as well.

It's the first and only time i'll organize it. I'm planning on organizing more on Moviemeter (a top Asia list, a top horror list, and a top 2010's list). These aren't official, but would be great recommendations list for people here as well as we have a decent community left there. I understand your concerns, and I hope enough fok!(kers) will submit a list.

Also currently there are no ICM'ers who have submitted a list, that aren't active on Fok! I think only two people were active on fok! and ICM, and that's me and Lonewolf (and Gorro will send a list in too)

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8329
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#2504

Post by Lonewolf2003 » January 10th, 2020, 1:28 pm

I'm totally with joachim and Gorro. The list should represent the taste of the community. On filmtotaal therefor always was rule that a user had to be member for some time (I think it was at least a month) and/or had a minimum amount of post, I forgot what the exact rules were.
If there aren't enough participants to produce a decent list so be it.

User avatar
Lakigigar
Posts: 1219
Joined: Oct 31, 2015
Location: Belgium
Contact:

#2505

Post by Lakigigar » January 10th, 2020, 11:48 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 1:28 pm
I'm totally with joachim and Gorro. The list should represent the taste of the community. On filmtotaal therefor always was rule that a user had to be member for some time (I think it was at least a month) and/or had a minimum amount of post, I forgot what the exact rules were.
If there aren't enough participants to produce a decent list so be it.
Would the fok! list than be reverted to one of it's older editions, or entirely deleted? With the lack of recent movies in lists, i don't think that's an option either. Replacing it with the MM top 1000 that has 73 participants would be better (or our community's list. I'm actually surprised our top 1000 isn't official).

We will see. I can surely present a top 100 as of now. I have currently a top 137 with more than 100 points, but i need 250 movies in total.

dirty_score
Posts: 258
Joined: Oct 10, 2016
Contact:

#2506

Post by dirty_score » January 12th, 2020, 2:54 pm

2 quick questions: Isn't it time to update the introduction of the :imdb: 2010 list?

Now, if you follow the source of the :imdb: lists it will get you to a page where's displayed in the front page 100 movies and not just 50 like the title says. Shouldn't be followed the source and expand the lists to 100 or it will stay forever as a 50 movies list like originally were created?

I mean, it's not like other original and traditional lists haven't been updated, expanded and so on.. but it can also confuse new people joining ICM.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30651
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#2507

Post by joachimt » January 12th, 2020, 3:05 pm

dirty_score wrote:
January 12th, 2020, 2:54 pm
2 quick questions: Isn't it time to update the introduction of the :imdb: 2010 list?

Now, if you follow the source of the :imdb: lists it will get you to a page where's displayed in the front page 100 movies and not just 50 like the title says. Shouldn't be followed the source and expand the lists to 100 or it will stay forever as a 50 movies list like originally were created?

I mean, it's not like other original and traditional lists haven't been updated, expanded and so on.. but it can also confuse new people joining ICM.
First question: You mean you want a kind of description the other decadelists have? Feel free to propose a text. I'm not good at writing stuff like that.

Second question: The source link doesn't go to a page of 100 movies, but to a page of 1199 movies. It's just that there are 100 movies displayed per page.
This has nothing to do with following the source to 100, because there is no top 100. There isn't even a source. We recreated the old source, because IMDb removed the decade lists a long time ago, but we felt they were worthwhile for IMDb as starters lists. 50 seems like a good number for starters. And indeed that's the length of the original lists before they disappeared. I see no reason to change that.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

dirty_score
Posts: 258
Joined: Oct 10, 2016
Contact:

#2508

Post by dirty_score » January 12th, 2020, 3:36 pm

joachimt wrote:
January 12th, 2020, 3:05 pm

First question: You mean you want a kind of description the other decadelists have? Feel free to propose a text. I'm not good at writing stuff like that.

Second question: The source link doesn't go to a page of 100 movies, but to a page of 1199 movies. It's just that there are 100 movies displayed per page.
This has nothing to do with following the source to 100, because there is no top 100. There isn't even a source. We recreated the old source, because IMDb removed the decade lists a long time ago, but we felt they were worthwhile for IMDb as starters lists. 50 seems like a good number for starters. And indeed that's the length of the original lists before they disappeared. I see no reason to change that.
2. Got it, but since the first page displays 100 movies (out of X) that could create some confusion among newbies. No need to change indeed but maybe the threshold/checks could change on some genres, like Sport?

1. Yeah, that's it. I think it was discussed before and it should be a collaborative thing, just for not having a simple "Best movie of the 2010's"

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30651
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#2509

Post by joachimt » January 12th, 2020, 4:22 pm

I think most newbies won't even click the source button.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
Lakigigar
Posts: 1219
Joined: Oct 31, 2015
Location: Belgium
Contact:

#2510

Post by Lakigigar » January 12th, 2020, 6:25 pm

SpoilerShow
1 Reservoir Dogs 1992 585
2 2001: A Space Odyssey 1968 545
3 Pulp Fiction 1994 519
4 Apocalypse Now 1979 464
5 The Neon Demon 2016 443
6 Irreversible 2002 429
7 A Clockwork Orange 1971 413
8 Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo 1966 391
9 Se7en 1995 384
10 Taxi Driver 1976 383
11 Bom Yeoreum Gaeul Gyeoul Geurigo Bom 2003 359
12 American Beauty 1999 359
13 Drive 2011 352
14 Mulholland Dr. 2001 341
15 Cidade de Deus 2002 313
16 The Big Lebowski 1998 308
17 C'era una volta il West 1968 305
18 12 Angry Men 1957 299
19 The Shining 1980 289
20 The Godfather 1972 286
21 Climax 2018 285
22 Monty Python and the Holy Grail 1975 278
23 Eyes Wide Shut 1999 275
24 In Bruges 2009 269
25 Léon 1994 260
26 Black Swan 2010 257
27 Jaws 1975 249
28 Fight Club 1999 249
29 Magnolia 1999 248
30 La vie d'Adèle 2013 244
31 Bin-jip 243
32 The Lion King 1994 242
33 Dogville 2003 237
34 Before Sunrise 1995 236
35 Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 2001 236
36 Jagten 2012 235
37 Casablanca 1942 233
38 Darbareye Elly 233
39 Grave 2017 231
40 Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 2002 230
41 American History X 1998 227
42 The Thin Red Line 224
43 Vertigo 1958 223
44 The Godfather part II 1974 222
45 Enter The Void 2009 215
46 Interstellar 2014 213
47 The Dark Knight 2008 212
48 Donnie Darko 212
49 Lilja 4-Ever 205
50 The Exorcist 1973 204
51 The House that Jack Built 2017 203
52 Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 2004 202
53 Nuovo Cinema Paradiso 1988 201
54 Before Sunset 2004 199
55 Idi i smotri 1985 198
56 Paris, Texas 1984 197
57 Victoria 196
58 El laberinto del fauno 2006 191
59 Terminator 2: Judgment Day 1991 190
60 Ex Machina 190
61 Full Metal Jacket 186
62 Spring Breakers 2012 185
63 Alien 1979 184
64 Heat 1995 183
65 Midsommar 178
66 American Honey 2016 173
67 Faa yeung nin wa 2000 170
68 La passion de Jeanne d'Arc 1928 169
69 Blade Runner 2049 2017 169
70 Trainspotting 168
71 The Departed 2006 163
72 A l'interieur 163
73 Jodaeiye Nader az Simin 2011 161
74 Le fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain 160
75 Martyrs 160
76 Lost in Translation 160
77 Antichrist 159
78 The New World 157
79 Melancholia 2011 156
80 Solyaris 1972 155
81 The Fountain 2006 154
82 Le trou 153
83 The Guest 153
84 Paths of Glory 1957 152
85 La meglio gioventù 2003 152
86 Goodfellas 1990 151
87 The Perks of Being a Wallflower 151
88 Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 150
89 The Thing 150
90 Nightcrawler 149
91 Seul Contre Tous 149
92 Hotaru no haka 1988 148
93 Good Time 147
94 Only God Forgives 147
95 Inland Empire 2006 146
96 Kill Bill: Vol. 1 2003 145
97 Sunset Blvd. 1950 145
98 Rear Window 143
99 M - Eine Stadt sucht einen Mörder 1931 143
100 Into the Wild 142
101 No Country for Old Men 2007 141
102 Under the Skin 2013 138
103 The Wolf of Wall Street 137
104 Christiane F. - Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo 137
105 Der Untergang 136
106 Boyhood 2014 136
107 Fargo 1996 135
108 Les quatre cent coups 134
109 Thelma 133
110 Badlands 132
111 Suspiria 1977 131
112 Le conseguenze dell'amore 131
113 Elephant 130
114 Manchester by the Sea 2016 130
115 Psycho 126
116 Reconstruction 125
117 Un condamné a mort s'est échappe ou le vent souffle il veut 124
118 Coco 124
119 Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) 2014 123
120 Mr. Nobody 2009 122
121 Stalker 122
122 There Will Be Blood 2007 119
123 Du rififi chez les hommes 118
124 Requiem for a Dream 117
125 The Usual Suspects 116
126 The Revenant 116
127 Salò o Le 120 Giornate di Sodoma 114
128 Angst 110
129 The Green Mile 108
130 Kill Bill: Vol. 2 2004 107
131 Snatch 107
132 Umberto D. 1952 107
133 Portrait de la jeune fille en feu 2019 107
134 Whiplash 2014 106
135 Oldeuboi 106
136 Kimssi pyoryugi 104
137 Festen 103
138 Amour 2012 102
139 It Follows 101
i have deleted the entriess of two users, so i have to input them , but something went wrong with their data, this is the current toplist after a week, with like 11 entries.

Reservoir Dogs still in the lead. If they manage to hold on, it would be a first win. Apocalypse Now, Pulp Fiction and 2001: A Space Odyssey are the other favourites. High entries for Climax, Irreversible and The Neon Demon currently. And Midsommar and Portrait de la jeune fille en feu are on their way for official checks currently. Climax as well.

Only The Godfather (2 times), The Shawshank Redemption (3 times), and Pulp Fiction (all editions since 2002 but five) have won the best movie award of the fok! top 250. I'm hoping it won't be Pulp Fiction this time, but it's a great movie nonetheless.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7065
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2511

Post by xianjiro » January 12th, 2020, 10:27 pm

joachimt wrote:
January 12th, 2020, 3:05 pm
dirty_score wrote:
January 12th, 2020, 2:54 pm
2 quick questions: Isn't it time to update the introduction of the :imdb: 2010 list?

Now, if you follow the source of the :imdb: lists it will get you to a page where's displayed in the front page 100 movies and not just 50 like the title says. Shouldn't be followed the source and expand the lists to 100 or it will stay forever as a 50 movies list like originally were created?

I mean, it's not like other original and traditional lists haven't been updated, expanded and so on.. but it can also confuse new people joining ICM.
First question: You mean you want a kind of description the other decadelists have? Feel free to propose a text. I'm not good at writing stuff like that.
I looked at the last few IMDb decade lists to see if I could help with this challenge. I agree the description doesn't work and the list is far from being "The best movies of the 2010s". However, I'm not up on movie history and critique enough to say what the over-arching theme of the decade would be and how that will relate to the list. At minimum, I would change "best" to "most popular".

I'm absolutely willing to help with text for this or other parts of the site.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 448
Joined: Sep 23, 2015
Contact:

#2512

Post by Teproc » January 12th, 2020, 10:45 pm

Not sure why you wouldn't use the word "best"... they're the best according to their IMDB ratings. Whether or not you think that's a good indicator is irrelevant, that's just what the lists are.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7065
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2513

Post by xianjiro » January 12th, 2020, 10:57 pm

Teproc wrote:
January 12th, 2020, 10:45 pm
Not sure why you wouldn't use the word "best"... they're the best according to their IMDB ratings. Whether or not you think that's a good indicator is irrelevant, that's just what the lists are.
Fair enough, but I would qualify it much like you did then. I'm not big on "best" the way it is now since "best" is so highly subjective. I'm guessing my best is different from yours or Ebert's or Rosenbaum's.

For me, the list is a combination of "most popular" titles with some "best films" that manage to sneak in given the data query criteria.

Maybe a description that describes the process of how movies come to be on this list would be an improvement. However neither that or the current description fits with the themes expressed in prior decades. Does any other decade claim the IMDb derived list to be the "best films" of that decade?

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7065
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2514

Post by xianjiro » January 12th, 2020, 10:59 pm

BTW, IMDb ratings have no criteria attached to them - so really "highest rated" would do a better job, no? Just look at the IMDb Indian Top 250. I doubt many forum members would apply the word "best" to that list and a few I know would be tempted to use the word "worst".

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
cinephage
Donator
Posts: 3872
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Contact:

#2515

Post by cinephage » January 13th, 2020, 1:58 pm

xianjiro wrote:
January 12th, 2020, 10:59 pm
BTW, IMDb ratings have no criteria attached to them - so really "highest rated" would do a better job, no? Just look at the IMDb Indian Top 250. I doubt many forum members would apply the word "best" to that list and a few I know would be tempted to use the word "worst".
My feeling is that this is always the case when discussing cinema.
"Best" always means "best in my opinion", there is no objective best film here. Some people will consider art films as boring and bad, others will consider blockbusters as empty and silly, and so on...
So using "best" is a shorter, more effective, term, to qualify a film one appreciates more than others, for whatever reasons.

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6668
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#2516

Post by albajos » January 13th, 2020, 2:00 pm

Best do not mean quality.

Best in this regard mean "Best in getting the highest votes"

just as I'm the best at running into door frames.

User avatar
Tim2460
Posts: 1236
Joined: Oct 01, 2018
Location: Dijon, France
Contact:

#2517

Post by Tim2460 » January 13th, 2020, 2:47 pm

xianjiro wrote:
January 12th, 2020, 10:59 pm
BTW, IMDb ratings have no criteria attached to them - so really "highest rated" would do a better job, no? Just look at the IMDb Indian Top 250. I doubt many forum members would apply the word "best" to that list and a few I know would be tempted to use the word "worst".
I was once told there ware an trool between the indian mafia voting 10.0 for the worst indian movies so that they enter the top250 ,)

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7065
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2518

Post by xianjiro » January 13th, 2020, 4:51 pm

cinephage wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 1:58 pm
xianjiro wrote:
January 12th, 2020, 10:59 pm
BTW, IMDb ratings have no criteria attached to them - so really "highest rated" would do a better job, no? Just look at the IMDb Indian Top 250. I doubt many forum members would apply the word "best" to that list and a few I know would be tempted to use the word "worst".
My feeling is that this is always the case when discussing cinema.
"Best" always means "best in my opinion", there is no objective best film here. Some people will consider art films as boring and bad, others will consider blockbusters as empty and silly, and so on...
So using "best" is a shorter, more effective, term, to qualify a film one appreciates more than others, for whatever reasons.
albajos wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 2:00 pm
Best do not mean quality.

Best in this regard mean "Best in getting the highest votes"

just as I'm the best at running into door frames.
But keep in mind that people who will read that come from all over the world with varying degrees of exposure to cinema, iCM, IMDb, and the English language. Again, if we are offering qualifications here, then it will lead to confusion elsewhere.

This is especially interesting now that we've switched to talking about which film, director, or actor deserves to be called "best" for 2019. Does that only mean that whoever wins is only "best at getting votes"?

If the IMDB 2010s list is "Best at getting highest votes", then say that - though I still think it's odd to say the 2010s list is a compilation of best films (however one chooses to define it) and yet the other lists don't say they are the best films of X decade. This is a series of related lists where 10 lists have a description that includes an overarching theme about cinema related to that decade. Then, suddenly, for 2010 it becomes a list of best films. The genre lists talk about the genre and I didn't come across the word "best" being used to describe the listed mysteries, westerns, or musicals. Even the IMDb Top 250 doesn't say these are the "best" 250 films.

So why is the 2010s list different from the other 30+ IMDb lists? Why is a list of best films whereas the others are not?

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

dirty_score
Posts: 258
Joined: Oct 10, 2016
Contact:

#2519

Post by dirty_score » January 14th, 2020, 12:38 pm

The Addams Family (2019) is now an official check at the Worldwide Box Office.

Having checked Ford v Ferrari i'm suprised it isn't on the :imdb: genre lists. For instance, it has enough votes and checks to be qualified to the sports list. How these lists work anyway?

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30651
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#2520

Post by joachimt » January 14th, 2020, 1:05 pm

dirty_score wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 12:38 pm
The Addams Family (2019) is now an official check at the Worldwide Box Office.

Having checked Ford v Ferrari i'm suprised it isn't on the :imdb: genre lists. For instance, it has enough votes and checks to be qualified to the sports list. How these lists work anyway?
PA has to update an IMDb-list of eligible titles. This is not an automatic process.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

Post Reply