Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 3 released May 19th)
Polls: 1950s (Results), 1966 awards (May 28th), 1935 (May 29th)
Challenges: Comedy, Western, Iberian Peninsula
Film of the Week: Unter den Brücken, June nominations (May 29th)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2A (Jun 4th)

Official lists updates

Post Reply
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30464
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

Re: Official lists updates

#2921

Post by mightysparks » April 29th, 2020, 8:55 am

Onderhond wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:36 am
mightysparks wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 7:27 am
the neighbour might be more knowledge or have a more interesting taste, but why would I be more inclined to trust him?
Because you know that at least his list of films comes from the heart and is driven by passion. With critics lists, you're never really certain what guided them when making the list. Did they exclude films by the same director to look more versatile? Did they restrict themselves to films that are available to a certain public (that of the publication)? Did they include certain films to improve their clout? You can be sure though that they skipped watching certain films because reviewing them wouldn't bring bread to the table. Like directors and other film crew, critics are mostly driven to their profession because of their love for film, but their professions are actually commercially driven, so even when they're publicizing personal lists, you can always be sure there's a underlying commercial motive in their selection process. That's already a shitty start for building any kind of serious canon.
True, but even with 'regular' people, half the time I don't think their lists are driven by passion. Often there's an element of showing off, trying to be controversial or just dumping anything in there. The number of horror lists like 'OMG I LOVE HORROR HERE ARE MY FAVOURITES AND A FEW RUBBISH ONES AT THE END TO PAD IT OUT LOL.' wut no I don't include those
Onderhond wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:36 am
it's the genre fans that really stand out with interesting lists but there aren't many of them, and often the lists aren't done in any meaningful way (ie, they're often post on a forum or an IMDb/Letterboxd list) which would fail another credibility test
It's this idea that I find weird ... because some knowledgeable film fans lack a way to officially make their lists known, they're deemed less credible? It's weird that form seems to matter so much (though I get that its an easy, albeit lazy way to quickly establish seeming credibility). It's also a bit ironic, considering the average cinephile's vision on commercial film making.
Well, I include them in TSZDT. But I mean, the regular person isn't going to care about a list that some random forum member has posted. I don't know who these people are, they are a username on a forum that I don't even visit and had to scour the Earth to find it, I can judge the list's quality (not the author) because of my knowledge of the genre, but who are they, who am I, who cares about either of us? Though I include pretty much everything in TSZDT, I have to judge every list's credibility by a number of variables and a well-established author/source is one of the main ones. I can't really deeply research some internet anon.
Onderhond wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:36 am
I don't really know how to balance it out fairly, but I do think credible sources are important.
Well I can agree with that statement, only I don't think popularity contests or critics lists inspire much credibility.
For every canon genre/country/era/whatever list, it would be amazing to see a DtC alternative by an avid fan.
I guess, but still we need some sort of 'evidence' of their fan-ness. Honestly, I'm more inclined towards avid fans of genres/countries/movements/etc over critics, but I'm trying to think of the whole thing objectively. And I still want to know something about the motivation behind the list/author.
"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
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7542
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2922

Post by xianjiro » April 29th, 2020, 9:13 am

So, would five randomly chosen users being asked to provide their 100 lowest rated unofficial checks be more valuable than: 100...
...Greatest Spanish Language Films
...Most Popular Films from the Soviet Era
...Best 21st Century Documentaries
...Non-stop Action as ranked by 40,000,000 Fans!
...Oprah's Best Chick Flicks for a Girl's Night
If these 100 superlatives lists were entirely composted of films that were official? 90%? 75% 33% 10% ?
And remember, we're talking for the forgotten masses who are bored with film canons and are just dying to find those "hidden gems" we read about rather often on this forum. Where does the balance arrive?

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

AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12308
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#2923

Post by AdamH » April 29th, 2020, 9:19 am

erde wrote:
April 25th, 2020, 9:57 am
Fergenaprido wrote:
April 25th, 2020, 9:49 am
I remember FilmTotaal reverting... I didn't realize Moviesense did as well; there's only one version of the list on icm so I think it's always been a static list.

FOK was first added to icm in 2009, which I'm guessing is the same list as the 2009 version with 120 voters. Not sure when it became official, or which version was active when the switch happened. Dwindling numbers does indeed suggest reverting is an option, but not sure which version would be the best to revert to: Most recent (2017), version at adoption (20??), version at addition to icm (2009), or first version ever [and with the most participants] (2006)?

Also the laptop issue explains why I haven't seen Lakigigar around for a while.
I just made an assumption about Moviesense; I thought that it was like the other, yearly updated tribute lists. I was probably wrong.
MovieSense seems to be a normal website (rather than a forum) and it has news articles etc. and there seems to have been a vote around 10 years ago by editors and readers. Seems like a fairly pointless list to me but I think it's another one with connections to The Guys/iCM hence it's official.

User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 590
Joined: Sep 23, 2015
Contact:

#2924

Post by Teproc » April 29th, 2020, 9:21 am

The idea that random people's lists are somehow purer and more "driven by passion" than critics list is highly suspicious to me. Everyone has their biases, and critics do this job because they are passionate about it. Yes, they will often want to include things that are important historically etc., but random people will include things that are particularly relevant to them for example, or things they grew up with and whatnot. You might think those biases are lesser for some reason (I wouldn't), but let's not chase after some non-existent purity.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3928
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2925

Post by Onderhond » April 29th, 2020, 9:26 am

mightysparks wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:55 am
I guess, but still we need some sort of 'evidence' of their fan-ness. Honestly, I'm more inclined towards avid fans of genres/countries/movements/etc over critics, but I'm trying to think of the whole thing objectively. And I still want to know something about the motivation behind the list/author.
I get most of what you're saying, I just don't really see how it's better with critics lists/popularity contests.

How can I judge the validity of the S&S list? It's just a bunch of meaningless names/critics to me. It gets published in a magazine, which means there's a commercial basis there, be it in the choices of he critics themselves, or the films the critics choose. I mean, the objectivity you're chasing is the same objectivity that says Taylor Swift is the best musical artist in the world. Is that really the kind of standard ICM wants to settle for?

Which brings me back to my earlier point, intersubjectivity and "canon" definitely have their place on ICM, but only when it is continually challenged.
Unless you want to adopt an even broader view. If you see the navel-gazing, elitism and rut of traditional canon as a critical element in the cycle that drives cultural rebellion, progress and renewal, then yes, ICM is doing a great job :p
Teproc wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 9:21 am
critics do this job because they are passionate about it.
They were driven to it because they are passionate about film. The do it because they have to pay the bills, just like most of us. That means that when faced with the option between watching Portrait de la Jeune Fille en Feu and let's say, Ninagawa's Diner, they'll pick the former one because that's the film that will bring the paychecks. It also pays to write a more favorable review for that film, or at least minimize the number of outlier reviews, especially if you want to keep publishing for your outlet.

I don't think most critics have anything on the average ICM user when it comes to amount/variety of films they watch. So why would you trust them? Because they are better writers and have made it into their job? Sounds like a weird reason to me.

Also, I hope I have made myself clear that I don't strive for purity, I strive for more different angles on the same subject. Now it's just the canon angle, the hardcore fan angle is completely absent.

User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 590
Joined: Sep 23, 2015
Contact:

#2926

Post by Teproc » April 29th, 2020, 9:46 am

I think you vastly overestimate the curiosity of the average ICM user. Maybe you meant the average ICM Forum user, but that's a much narrower category.

Critics do it as a job yeah, but I don't think the proces you describe is all that common, not among respectable critics anyway. It matters for what they chose to watch and or review obviously, but if you ask a critic to list films for a poll, I really doubt they'll strive to be as conventional as possible, they'll probably do the reverse in fact... that most still end up much more conventional that you'd like is not necessarily a sign of them being disingenuous. I really don't think "minimizing outlier reviews" is an actual thing for any serious critic, and it's a pretty spurrious and impossible-to-prove claim anyway.

Your Taylor Swift comparison is very misleading, as you really can't accuse S&S of being populist. The analogy you're looking for is more along the lines of a Kendrick Lamar for example.

Can you give an example of the kind of hardcore fan list you're thinking of? You've probably suggested them before, but I'd like to see exactly what you mean.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3928
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2927

Post by Onderhond » April 29th, 2020, 9:49 am

Teproc wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 9:46 am
Maybe you meant the average ICM Forum user, but that's a much narrower category.
I'm sorry, that is indeed what I meant :)

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3928
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2928

Post by Onderhond » April 29th, 2020, 10:12 am

Teproc wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 9:46 am
I really don't think "minimizing outlier reviews" is an actual thing for any serious critic, and it's a pretty spurrious and impossible-to-prove claim anyway.
It's also naive to think it doesn't happen. I think it's only impossible-to-prove when you want to point out specific instances. A bit like the clout canon films have on ratings. Even people who end up disliking a film like 2001 will probably give it a slightly higher rating than some random unknown flick they disliked just as much. Hard to pinpoint when and where it actually happens, but the overall effect is quite hard to deny (and I think well reported, no doubt there are social studies that support this).

But I'm not saying all critics do is give lip service to their readers of course, I do think that the ones that thrive are the ones with very conform tastes, which gives you pretty much the same results. Maybe I just don't follow critics enough, but how many do you know that openly dislike directors like Kurosawa, Bergman, Hitchcock? And how often do you see these negative reviews published? I mean, with people's tastes being subjective and all, it's only natural that these people and opinions are out there.
Teproc wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 9:46 am
Your Taylor Swift comparison is very misleading, as you really can't accuse S&S of being populist. The analogy you're looking for is more along the lines of a Kendrick Lamar for example.
No, I think it's quite apt. They cater to different audiences, but the populist nature of both seems pretty much the same. It's simply trying to establish objective measures where there are none and reverting to intersubjectivity to make a claim of being right.
Teproc wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 9:46 am
Can you give an example of the kind of hardcore fan list you're thinking of? You've probably suggested them before, but I'd like to see exactly what you mean.
I'm sure mighty has better examples to give. For all the reasons mentioned above I've never been really into lists and usually pay more attention to personal recommends by people I know, but it mustn't be too hard to find one or more lists by a hardcore horrorheads that can provide a nice DtC to the TSZDT list.

User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 590
Joined: Sep 23, 2015
Contact:

#2929

Post by Teproc » April 29th, 2020, 12:34 pm

If S&S is populist, you're using a definition of populist that is so far from the commonly accepted meaning of the word as to be nonsensical. You mean that it caters to a specific readership's tastes, and of course it does but that's not what populist means.

I think the issue you're getting at is fundamentally the question of objectivity in art, an issue of which I generally tend to agree with you on, though I would add some nuance. While I agree that there is no objectivity in art as it exists purely in the relationship between the piece of art and the individual "receiving" it in whatever form, what critics do is analyze art history, even when they're talking about contemporary films. How artists influence each other, how they interact with the time and place they evolve in, etc. Where things get a bit muddled is that they obviously also have their own personal reactions that they're exploring at the same time, but that historical approach is essential to what the idea of the canon is, and I guess you see it as a way to "invent" objectivity where there is none, but that's where I disagree. Some films are more important than others, because they are culturally significant in some way. I agree that this is often conflated with aesthetic value, but I guess I don't mind since I think aesthetic value is entirely in the eye of the beholder (an idea I believe you agree with), so people can say whatever they want to say about what films are the best, really.

So I see the point in saying that allowing for more exploration of film as a purely artistic endeavour, which creates as many experiences as there are people experiencing it, to be represented on ICM would be a good idea... but the whole point of ICM, or at least of the concept of "official" lists is to hierarchize, you're just never going to get around that.

Sorry for the potentially nonsensical rambling. I guess your viewpoint is strongly influenced by your dislike of most canonical films, which I totally understand is a bit frustrating, but the kind of cinephilia you want to see more represented is inherently less prone to format itself into the format ICM is based on.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11248
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#2930

Post by mjf314 » April 29th, 2020, 1:16 pm

@Onderhond: We do have official lists that are made by fans (as opposed to critics).

If you're looking for lists made by "hardcore fans", we 500<400 and Doubling the Canon are two good examples, and both lists contain many films that aren't in the standard canon, and many non-arthouse films.

A personal list made by 1 random fan wouldn't be more interesting than 500<400 or DtC, unless that random fan's taste is similar to your own. But then how many random fan lists should we adopt, and how do we decide which ones to adopt? Any list that we pick would be arbitrary, so I think it makes more sense to adopt a list of films that at least several people like (500<400 and DtC).

If you're looking for something more mainstream, we have IMDb and Reddit. You also might like the Douban list, which isn't official.

We also have iCM Most Favorited, which is voted by all iCM users, but contains many lesser known films due to the methodology. There's also iCheckMovies Most Favorite - obscure version but it's not official.

If you want films selected by 1 person, we have the S&S hidden gems list. The participants were critics, but they were asked to pick obscure films, so they had no reason to reinforce the canon.

Genre lists typically go beyond the canon and contain many non-arthouse films, even if the list is made by an expert. For example, the action list, the horror list, the sci-fi lists. Just because a sci-fi list contains a few arthouse films doesn't mean the entire list is arthouse.

If you're looking for more unusual film selections, maybe you'd like the weird list or the cult lists.

We have some specialized lists that were voted by fans: Dutch, LoveHKFilm, Silent Era, Spaghetti Western.

You criticized the Empire Russia list because it contains a few Tarkovsky films, but you only have 11 checks on it, and it looks like you started with the arthouse films, so maybe you judged the list prematurely.

I'm not sure what kinds of lists you're looking for, but if you want a specific type of list, maybe I can search for one.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3928
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2931

Post by Onderhond » April 29th, 2020, 2:04 pm

Teproc wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 12:34 pm
If S&S is populist, you're using a definition of populist that is so far from the commonly accepted meaning of the word as to be nonsensical. You mean that it caters to a specific readership's tastes, and of course it does but that's not what populist means.
You are right, my mistake. I thought the meaning of the word was broader, seems that is not the case :)
Teproc wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 12:34 pm
Sorry for the potentially nonsensical rambling. I guess your viewpoint is strongly influenced by your dislike of most canonical films, which I totally understand is a bit frustrating, but the kind of cinephilia you want to see more represented is inherently less prone to format itself into the format ICM is based on.
I honestly feel your post is quite clear, I really don't agree that ICM isn't suited for exploration though. Although it could get somewhat messy in the current format, a site like ICM would and should be the perfect place for this, not in the least because the gamification aspect of the site does push exploration. Sadly only of the lists that are official.

To make things more concrete (and to explain the stuff I tend to miss on ICM), let's combine two of my film interests: Japanese cinema and horror cinema. I'm not really sure how many Japanese horror films are official, but if I wanted to explore this (rather hefty) niche there would just be the TSZDT list for me, the rest is way too random/unfocused. On that list, there are ... 34 Japanese entries, which is not an awful lot (let's forget for a moment there is no way to actually filter them out either). They are more than likely canon-like films, which I probably have already seen or are part of subniches that don't really have my full attention. No doubt a film like Ringu is on there, which is one my favorite examples I why I dislike canon. Its only historical relevance is that it became popular (and part of that popularity is based on its franchise), as a film itself it really isn't anything special, they were already making the exact same films 5-6 years earlier in Japan.

Anyway, Japanese horror. It's not really one thing of course. There's the early 21st century suspense wave, there's a bunch of over the top splatter, there's quite a lot of body horror, both the more stylish/uptight kind and the culty kind (like Tetsuo), there are the more classic ghost story (Kaidan) films, you might want to include the Kaiju films too (Godzilla - though you probably want to be a bit more selective there), there are horror films that lean more to the arthouse side, there is a bunch of animated horror, there's no lack of zombie films either. If I committed to it, I could probably come up with 34 subniches, which gives me an average of 1-2 films/niche to "explore".

The canon is nice if you are completely new to Japanese horror cinema and have no way to start. Ideally, it should give you a taste of what is out there in terms of variation (which it still does not I think, but hey). But then what? Good luck finding critics making such specialized lists, good luck finding critics with "credibility" who even consider making such lists. That is were the fan community would come in handy. If the internet has taught me one thing, it is that there are plenty of knowledgeable people out there who could make respectable lists for each niche.

Would that ideal scenario be achievable? I don't think so. Would some watered down solution be possible? I guess it would.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3928
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2932

Post by Onderhond » April 29th, 2020, 2:23 pm

mjf314 wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 1:16 pm
I'm not sure what kinds of lists you're looking for, but if you want a specific type of list, maybe I can search for one.
I know you can, I do keep track of the lists you post in the "link to lists" topic, which is much appreciated :)

There are some potentially interesting lists on ICM, but even they are usually set up in such a way that they end up alienating me, mostly because they are very focused on either older films or American cinema. I mean, it's nice to have an action list, but it stops in 1996 ... same with the European horror list. It's nice we have non-canon lists ... but they are made by extreme canon-heads.

And yes, maybe I'm tossing aside certain lists that do contain interesting films, like the Empire Russia one. But if I've only seen 11 films on a list and they're the token arthouse ones, chances are slim that the rest of the list is going to appeal to me much. I'm also not going to watch the remaining 89 films just to find out :D

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11248
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#2933

Post by mjf314 » April 29th, 2020, 2:40 pm

@Onderhond: You can sort by country on TSZDT's website: http://theyshootzombies.com/ghf1000/full-list/

Would you support a list like this one becoming official? It focuses exclusively on Asian horror, but the book was published in 2006.
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/asia ... pronikoff/

Edit: I found some more recent Japanese horror lists, but all of them seem too small to make an interesting official list. Like this one, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/f ... lms-ranked

User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3184
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

#2934

Post by WalterNeff » April 29th, 2020, 3:08 pm

Aside from the fact that nobody seems to be able to make a simple point without writing a dissertation, shouldn't most of this discussion be in the New Official List Discussion thread? or the TSZDT thread?

User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 590
Joined: Sep 23, 2015
Contact:

#2935

Post by Teproc » April 29th, 2020, 3:10 pm

FWIW, Japanese Horror seems like the kind of genre that we could find an ICM-compatible list for, like the samurai list or the spaghetti western list.

I do think we could generally do with more genre-specific lists.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11248
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#2936

Post by mjf314 » April 29th, 2020, 3:17 pm


User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3928
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2937

Post by Onderhond » April 29th, 2020, 3:41 pm

mjf314 wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 2:40 pm
Would you support a list like this one becoming official?
Honestly, if I would implement my own suggestion I would probably take a good look at how to couple official lists with (selected) deep dive lists.

- Making everything official doesn't sound like a good plan.
- I am okay with the canon standing front and center, I'm not okay with the lack of broader deep dive options

The Asian horror list you linked is a decent (but short) one, but if you make that official there are 5000 lists you also have to make official, I understand that a solution like that just isn't feasible and would detract from the current working of the site..

I guess, if you look at video games nowadays, the logical way to go about it would be to keep the "canon" lists like they are now, but provide post-game content in the form of curated deepdive lists for each canon list. They could offer some kind of additional trophy pimping to make those lists a bit more attractive, but in such a way that it wouldn't really interfere with the current trophy system (think platinum+)

(Also funny you found the Ann Bilson list, we connected on Facebook some time ago, not really knowing who she was :D )
mjf314 wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 3:17 pm
I just noticed that TSZDT has a top 100 Japanese horror list:
http://theyshootzombies.com/ghf1000/sub ... ror-films/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/tszd ... htysparks/
Definitely much closer to the kind of lists I'm interesting in. :)

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31469
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#2938

Post by joachimt » May 5th, 2020, 7:25 pm

I hadn't update the BO lists in five weeks, because nobody's going to the cinema anyway. Out of curiosity I just did. Only a few minor recalculations on the WW-list, but nothing else.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7542
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2939

Post by xianjiro » May 6th, 2020, 12:16 am

thanks anyway - I was kind of wondering though I thought the same as you did. No idea how streaming releases will ultimately affect the whole me. But I'm thinking

:rip: Box Office Blockbusters

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

User avatar
Chilton
Posts: 523
Joined: Jan 05, 2013
Contact:

#2940

Post by Chilton » May 6th, 2020, 10:58 am

mjf314 wrote:
April 18th, 2020, 5:31 pm
Chilton wrote:
April 18th, 2020, 5:19 pm
The ICM's Most Favorited list hasn't updated in more than a month
I just told Marijn about it, so hopefully he'll fix it soon.
Still broken?

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11248
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#2941

Post by mjf314 » May 6th, 2020, 12:08 pm

Chilton wrote:
May 6th, 2020, 10:58 am
mjf314 wrote:
April 18th, 2020, 5:31 pm
Chilton wrote:
April 18th, 2020, 5:19 pm
The ICM's Most Favorited list hasn't updated in more than a month
I just told Marijn about it, so hopefully he'll fix it soon.
Still broken?
He hasn't fixed it yet.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31469
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#2942

Post by joachimt » May 6th, 2020, 7:10 pm

Still no sign of a Reddit update?
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
erde
Posts: 258
Joined: Jan 02, 2019
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

#2943

Post by erde » May 7th, 2020, 7:06 am

Have they perhaps skipped a year and replaced the annual update with this?

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/redd ... mi-16evil/
Image Image

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3879
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#2944

Post by Fergenaprido » May 7th, 2020, 8:20 am

That was my understanding. Didn't someone mention that earlier?

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10816
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#2945

Post by funkybusiness » May 7th, 2020, 8:32 am

Fergenaprido wrote:
May 7th, 2020, 8:20 am
That was my understanding. Didn't someone mention that earlier?
I remember something like that, yeah.


User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31469
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#2947

Post by joachimt » May 7th, 2020, 5:33 pm

updated
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
Knaldskalle
Moderator
Posts: 9777
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: New Mexico, Trumpistan
Contact:

#2948

Post by Knaldskalle » May 8th, 2020, 7:40 pm

Image
ImageImageImageImage

Please don't hurt yourself, talk to someone.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7542
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2949

Post by xianjiro » May 8th, 2020, 11:52 pm

added - btw, I'm on Eureka's mailing list now, so I'll see the announcements

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

User avatar
Traveller
Posts: 1129
Joined: Dec 31, 2018
Location: Germany
Contact:

#2950

Post by Traveller » May 15th, 2020, 4:48 pm

ICM
May Challenge: Image
But at the bottom, the immanent philosopher sees in the entire universe only the deepest longing for absolute annihilation, and it is as if he clearly hears the call that permeates all spheres of heaven: Redemption! Redemption! Death to our life! and the comforting answer: you will all find annihilation and be redeemed!

User avatar
jeroeno
Posts: 3355
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
Location: Valkenswaard, The Netherlands
Contact:

#2951

Post by jeroeno » May 15th, 2020, 4:50 pm

That Agnès Varda box looks fan-tastic :worship:

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4325
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#2952

Post by OldAle1 » May 15th, 2020, 4:58 pm

jeroeno wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 4:50 pm
That Agnès Varda box looks fan-tastic :worship:
I am absolutely going to have to break my no-more-box-sets-this-year rule. I thought I was safe when the James Bond box I was thinking about suddenly tripled in price, but no. Fuck you Criterion for making me spend money I don't have.


User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13420
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2954

Post by brokenface » May 16th, 2020, 11:30 am

So this is more a curious enquiry than necessarily an update. I was trying to look up a film in the Have You Seen? book as it was on the ICM list, but it isn't to be found in my copy of the book, I then also noticed one more listed on ICM not in my copy. I thought there was only one edition of this, but maybe there are more?

The films in question Faithless (2000) and Birth (2004). I went through the last 200 or so on the list, everything else matched up with index my book, so it's curious there's just these two different. Does anyone else have a copy to check - maybe a different between hardback vs paperback?

The list on ICM has 1011 films. The book has 1000 pages of films, 1 per page. I can account for following where he put multiple films in one:

Fantomas +4
LOTR +2
Ivan the Terrible +1
Die Nibelungen +1

Anyone know what the other extras come from, or could these be due to a couple of errors?

User avatar
Knaldskalle
Moderator
Posts: 9777
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: New Mexico, Trumpistan
Contact:

#2955

Post by Knaldskalle » May 16th, 2020, 2:40 pm

brokenface wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 11:30 am
So this is more a curious enquiry than necessarily an update. I was trying to look up a film in the Have You Seen? book as it was on the ICM list, but it isn't to be found in my copy of the book, I then also noticed one more listed on ICM not in my copy. I thought there was only one edition of this, but maybe there are more?

The films in question Faithless (2000) and Birth (2004). I went through the last 200 or so on the list, everything else matched up with index my book, so it's curious there's just these two different. Does anyone else have a copy to check - maybe a different between hardback vs paperback?

The list on ICM has 1011 films. The book has 1000 pages of films, 1 per page. I can account for following where he put multiple films in one:

Fantomas +4
LOTR +2
Ivan the Terrible +1
Die Nibelungen +1

Anyone know what the other extras come from, or could these be due to a couple of errors?
I just checked my hardback and you're right, those two are not in there. There is a paperback version and sometimes those are different from the hardback version, so if someone has a paperback version of the book, please check.
ImageImageImageImage

Please don't hurt yourself, talk to someone.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24701
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#2956

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » May 16th, 2020, 3:25 pm

I don't know but I have a memory of this being discussed before. I'll do some searching.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24701
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#2957

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » May 16th, 2020, 3:37 pm

brokenface wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 11:30 am
Anyone know what the other extras come from, or could these be due to a couple of errors?
Is The Great McGinty in your book? That was added along with Faithless and Birth in March 2012. Still trying to find why.

Edit: I looked at my digital copy and McGinty is there but not the other two. I can't find any reference to this having been discussed before here. I'll wait a bit to see if someone else chimes in, otherwise I'll remove those two.
Last edited by PeacefulAnarchy on May 16th, 2020, 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edit added

User avatar
Knaldskalle
Moderator
Posts: 9777
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: New Mexico, Trumpistan
Contact:

#2958

Post by Knaldskalle » May 16th, 2020, 4:09 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 3:37 pm
brokenface wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 11:30 am
Anyone know what the other extras come from, or could these be due to a couple of errors?
Is The Great McGinty in your book? That was added along with Faithless and Birth in March 2012. Still trying to find why.

Edit: I looked at my digital copy and McGinty is there but not the other two. I can't find any reference to this having been discussed before here. I'll wait a bit to see if someone else chimes in, otherwise I'll remove those two.
Yep, page 346 between Great Expectations and The Great Train Robbery.
ImageImageImageImage

Please don't hurt yourself, talk to someone.

bjornam
Posts: 391
Joined: Jun 02, 2011
Contact:

#2959

Post by bjornam » May 16th, 2020, 4:25 pm

Hi! I have the paperback edition of this, without Faithless and Birth as well (from 2008). McGinty is there. But I vaguely remember having seen a 2nd edition of the book at one point. Maybe something was changed there.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24701
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#2960

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » May 16th, 2020, 4:50 pm

A google books version from 2010 appears to have Faithless and Birth. I can't get an index for it so I don't know if something was removed or if more was added. But somewhere there's a copy with those two films.

Post Reply