Official lists updates

[Fergenaprido]

Short docs are on the doc list.

Mini series: isolated list, all miniseries are eligible, no miniseries are eligible for any other lists.
Docs lists: All non-video, non-standup, non-miniseries docs are eligible, not eligible fore any other lists.
All other lists: All non-docs and non-miniseries eligible if they meet list criteria.

Oh, okay.

The Top list update message from a few days ago mentioned Night and Fog and Isle of Flowers being removed from the shorts list, but didn't mention them being added to the doc list, which made me think they weren't eligible. I didn't realize they were already on the doc list; must have missed when they were added.

Any movement on the decision regarding the made-for-tv discussion we had a few months back?

[Torgo]

I believe The Queen's Gambit should be eligible for Mini series list.

Huh, I could have sworn when I checked it was not tagged as a mini-series

Updated the source list, there will be 5 new minis coming in
The Haunting of Hill House (2018)
The Queen's Gambit (2020)
The Last Dance (2020)
Blue Planet II (2017–2018)
Our Planet (2019)

Thanks for updating us, PA!
Was waiting for Q-Gamb to come up. But I never paid attention to the checks needed for this certain list and try to avoid it, anyway.

I'm not sure if it was discussed before (most likely was) but shouldn't the AFI lists be moved to the Institutes tab like BFI's?

Now this leaves me scratching my head.
Either BFI's Top 100 British Films have to be moved to the Institute tab - or BFI's 100 American Independent Films have to switch places.
The selection of European Horror Films is even more tricky. Couldn't it be viewed as a specific region-list, comparable to Tom Vick's Asian Guide? And are the 100 Classical Martial Arts films (under the Website tab) not country-worthy, too? Hm.

Good that some of these issues will be suited either way soon by the final implementation of the Genre tab ..

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Short docs are on the doc list.

Mini series: isolated list, all miniseries are eligible, no miniseries are eligible for any other lists.
Docs lists: All non-video, non-standup, non-miniseries docs are eligible, not eligible fore any other lists.
All other lists: All non-docs and non-miniseries eligible if they meet list criteria.

Oh, okay.

The Top list update message from a few days ago mentioned Night and Fog and Isle of Flowers being removed from the shorts list, but didn't mention them being added to the doc list, which made me think they weren't eligible. I didn't realize they were already on the doc list; must have missed when they were added.

Any movement on the decision regarding the made-for-tv discussion we had a few months back?

They've always been eligible for the docs list.

As for the made for TV discussion I think I said I'm fine with it, not my choice to make though. We can discuss it in the mod forum.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Docs lists: All non-video, non-standup, non-miniseries docs are eligible, not eligible fore any other lists.

Also, maybe, non-concert music live performances?

Unfortunately music concerts are a staple of the doc genre, and while I would be glad to draw a personal line as to what counts and what doesn't count I don't think I want to get into that quagmire.

[Torgo]

Unfortunately music concerts are a staple of the doc genre, and while I would be glad to draw a personal line as to what counts and what doesn't count I don't think I want to get into that quagmire.

Well why so? You're a mod team and already decide on other issues, including list adoptions. Why not? Shouldn't be your load to carry alone, of course.

.. just checked for fun if there are BTS movies and there are several indeed, and only one has 8.8?! Had anticipated them to be bombarded into 9.3 at least. Pfft. Way to disappoint me, K-Pop stans!

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Unfortunately music concerts are a staple of the doc genre, and while I would be glad to draw a personal line as to what counts and what doesn't count I don't think I want to get into that quagmire.

Well why so? You're a mod team and already decide on other issues, including list adoptions. Why not? Shouldn't be your load to carry alone, of course.

.. just checked for fun if there are BTS movies and there are several indeed, and only one has 8.8?! Had anticipated them to be bombarded into 9.3 at least. Pfft. Way to disappoint me, K-Pop stans!

Because I've looked at this before and there's no reasonable place to draw a line, even an arbitrary one.

Here's a little thought experiment:
These are the films tagged music currently on the list:

Samsara
Koyaanisqatsi
-These are not concert films nor music docs.

Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage
Pearl Jam Twenty
Searching for Sugar Man
-These are not concert films, they are docs about the band with some concert footage.

Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii
Stop Making Sense
Sigur Rós: Heima
The Last Waltz
Woodstock
-These are concert films, but I don't think you can reasonably say they aren't docs. Three of them are on the S&S docs list, and I can't say the other two are less doc than those three. (I do think they are lesser films, but that's an artistic judgement not a form judgement)


Foo Fighters: Back and Forth
Iron Maiden: Flight 666
U2 3D
George Harrison: Living in the Material World
-I haven't seen these but I doubt they're less doc than the others above. From a quick search neither FF:BF nor Harrison are concert films. So that leaves two maybe kinda exclusions that I'd have to be convinced are less doc than Stop Making Sense.

[kongs_speech]

Good news, Americans. Shaun the Sheep is streaming free with Amazon Prime in what appears to be its entirety. Yeah, I'll watch one of these a day. Would be a cool check to have.

[Torgo]

Because I've looked at this before and there's no reasonable place to draw a line, even an arbitrary one.

I surrender, it's more puzzling than I thought.


Fun fact: With the 2 new 'Planet' docs in our Mini-Series list, there's now 4 of them in the Top 10 alone - #1 Planet Earth II, #6 Planet Earth, #7 Our Planet, #9 Blue Planet II - and already even 3 more to be found in succession: #21 Human Planet, #22 Frozen Planet, #23 The Blue Planet. That makes 7 in the Top 50.

Despite how mankind treats Earth, people sure do like their Planet-themed television.

[xianjiro]

huh, maybe we need a separate list just for Planet docus

[kongs_speech]

Thanks to those things and Ken Burns, I will never even go for bronze on the mini-series list. I deeply respect our planet and wish people would do a better job taking care of it, but I cannot imagine watching dozens of hours of nature docs. Both versions of Cosmos are cool, though.

[mightysparks]

Nah all those 'Planet' series are great. I think I've watched 3-4 of them and I could easily watch a million more. Some beautiful imagery and cute animals.

[xianjiro]

While I'm not too keen to seen yet another lion eat yet another gazelle, I think one of the reason this Planet named docu-series are so interesting is the fantastic production values (man can those animals act natural) and they filmmakers are either showing things rarely ever seen or caught on film before or are showing animals that are relatively new. I've been watching Our Planet on Netflix recently and was amazed at some of the very deep sea creatures they had to share.

Don't remember which one it was, and it might have been by someone other than Attenborough and crew, but I felt like I'd seen 90%+ before. It was kinda boring and I wasn't so kind in my rating as I am with most of these Planet titles.

[joachimt]

Because I've looked at this before and there's no reasonable place to draw a line, even an arbitrary one.

I surrender, it's more puzzling than I thought.

On MovieMeter we don't allow concertfilms on the site unless it had a theatrical release. We do allow docs about music and bands though. So we basically have to make a case by case decision where to draw the line. We have some guidelines about how much concert and how much doc it should be to decide one way or the other, but it's no hard science. Pretty annoying now and then.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Yeah, no video is a good rule that we already have.

[joachimt]

We changed the name of the Pixar list, because the name was too long and caused display issues. It is now called Pixar Directors Recommend: Films for Kids Under 13. URL changed as well because of the namechange.

[kongs_speech]

Most of the 52 titles I have left shouldn't be an excruciating watch, but I'm dreading Diary of a Wimpy Kid more than 20 hours of Shaun the Sheep. I was desperately hoping none of that franchise would ever become official checks.

[xianjiro]

We changed the name of the Pixar list, because the name was too long and caused display issues. It is now called Pixar Directors Recommend: Films for Kids Under 13. URL changed as well because of the namechange.

thanks for the headsup! You saved me a headache. I know I would have tried to search for it in my spreadsheet (using the new title, of course) two or three times before just entering Pixar. But there are lots of things I do with the website where I cut and paste and don't think much about it.

[Onderhond]

Films (and one series).

[joachimt]

Films (and one series).

We thought about putting that in the title, but then it was too long again.

[Onderhond]

We thought about putting that in the title, but then it was too long again.

Long ... it's so relative when you think of how long 170x7 minutes claymation sheep really is.

[dirty_score]

What about The Wire, one of most acclaimed films of 21st century?

Foo Fighters: Back and Forth
Iron Maiden: Flight 666
U2 3D
George Harrison: Living in the Material World
-I haven't seen these but I doubt they're less doc than the others above. From a quick search neither FF:BF nor Harrison are concert films. So that leaves two maybe kinda exclusions that I'd have to be convinced are less doc than Stop Making Sense.

I don't think you, me or anyone else will ever see U2 3D, I can't even torrent it!

[Torgo]

170x7 minutes claymation sheep

[xianjiro]

as I said, Shawn Loves Sheep

[jeroeno]

U2 3D is a 2008 American-produced 3D concert film featuring rock band U2 performing during the Vertigo Tour in 2006. The film contains performances of 14 songs

. I think this should be excluded from the documentary list.

[Quartoxuma]

Back in September, I got a bit annoyed with the 'Film as a subversive Art' list, because there was an obvious wrong entry. I got my hands on a copy of the book and noticed that apparently this list goes back to some very old source from the early web and just lists every film mentioned within the book. This seemed absurd to me, since Vogel obviously did not intend for every movie he mentioned to be part of his canon. Actually, he made it very clear since at the end of each chapter he has a dedicated section. After some back and forth at the discuss Panel over at ICM, I decided to go back to the source and list every movie in the dedicated sections. In addition, I also added every movie with a film still printed in the book.

You can read the whole discussion in the link above, but in short, I think this version comes nearer to what Vogel had intended.
You can check out the detailed overview in a spreadsheet I posted.

I had a PDF of the original English version and a printed, updated German copy. I compared both versions and while they are largely identical, there are some additions and some films that were removed. This might be a task for film historians to figure out and I do have my suspicions, but I won't get into that here.

Most important would be to get your opinions on what version of the list should be the official one. These are the options I can think of:

A. The list stays in the current version (modeled after the English PDF, every film that gets mentioned in the book is included)
B1. Only films in the newer, German version are included (either with a still or in a dedicated section)
B2. Only films in the newer, German version are included (only in the dedicated sections)
C1. Only films in the older, English PDF version are included (either with a still or in a dedicated section)
C2. Only films in the older, English PDF version are included (only in the dedicated sections)
D1. Films from both versions are included (either with a still or in a dedicated section)
D2. Films from both versions are included (only in the dedicated sections)

I personally favor option D1, but I am open to any result. If it is decided that we should go with A, the list should at least be worked over to make sure that the correct titles are chosen.

Greetings!
Josh

[Torgo]

Quartoxuma, this looks like some amazing, thorough research! I'm no active Unclician, but thanks for trying to keep the legacy clean.
We do have an old post about our most famous dirty Uncle, but I'd suggest this work even warrants a new post, supposedly with a few poll options to choose from.
Either way, one of our users surely will care for our maybe not perfect, but "established" version of the list to be preserved. Many users will have invested much work to dig up some of the bizarre shorts and films behind this and will be happy to have a checkable 600-entry version of all this madness available .. even if not all of them are deemed to stay official.

U2 3D is a 2008 American-produced 3D concert film featuring rock band U2 performing during the Vertigo Tour in 2006. The film contains performances of 14 songs

. I think this should be excluded from the documentary list.

I totally was supportive of this, but after PA's posting and the more I read about it, the less I am convinced.
- It's not just one concert filmed with a camcorder on a tripod and that's it. The film is edited from various performances, so there's actually some "creative" work done.
- Most importantly, it was screened in theater and very successfully so at 26 million Dollars box office. That fact alone makes it more list-proof for me than Hamilton (2020), may I like it or not. Also: "following post-production, this film became the first live-action 3D film to be screened at the Cannes Film Festival"
- Last but not least, the whole thing sounds maybe even a bit ambitious or interesting: Trivia "At the time of its release, this production employed the greatest number of 3D cameras ever used for a single project -- and in fact utilized every digital 3D camera and recording deck in existence at the time."

What astonishes me is not that it collected almost 3000 votes on IMDb, because braindead fans are akin to blindly upvote such stuff, but the over 500 checks on ICM, making it eligible for our list in the first place (?). And who knows how many of these checks are legit.
Mind that U2 3D isn't legally available as of now ..

[Timec]

What astonishes me is not that it collected almost 3000 votes on IMDb, because braindead fans are akin to blindly upvote such stuff, but the over 500 checks on ICM, making it eligible for our list in the first place (?). And who knows how many of these checks are legit.
Mind that U2 3D isn't legally available as of now ..

I have no opinion on its eligibility for a "documentary" list, but U2 3D had weekly screenings at my local IMAX for like a year when it came out. I saw it on my birthday in 2008.

If it made $26 million, it doesn't seem impossible that a few thousand IMDb users - braindead or not - actually did go to the theater and see it during its run.

The ICM check to IMDb vote ratio does seem a bit more questionable, though...

[Quartoxuma]

Quartoxuma, this looks like some amazing, thorough research! I'm no active Unclician, but thanks for trying to keep the legacy clean.
We do have an old post about our most famous dirty Uncle, but I'd suggest this work even warrants a new post, supposedly with a few poll options to choose from.
Either way, one of our users surely will care for our maybe not perfect, but "established" version of the list to be preserved. Many users will have invested much work to dig up some of the bizarre shorts and films behind this and will be happy to have a checkable 600-entry version of all this madness available .. even if not all of them are deemed to stay official.

Didn't think about that. I just quickly referenced which films would leave the list. It comes down to these 53 films.

[Torgo]

Thanks for that. Good news for the Amos cult: Almost all of them are bigger feature films which are present on many other lists and not that subversive, aye. Not many official checks lost.
But making us lose a 1910s porn film is pretty rough, man.

[Quartoxuma]

Thanks for that. Good news for the Amos cult: Almost all of them are bigger feature films which are present on many other lists and not that subversive, aye. Not many official checks lost.
But making us lose a 1910s porn film is pretty rough, man.

That's an interesting example. Apparently it is prominently featured in A History of the Blue Movie or even shown in full. As the early pornographic movies were all filmed illegally, they have no names attached and, thus, no copyright. So, in some form, the film is featured on the list, but that is just one of the many details one can get lost on with this book.

[Knaldskalle]

Most important would be to get your opinions on what version of the list should be the official one. These are the options I can think of:

A. The list stays in the current version (modeled after the English PDF, every film that gets mentioned in the book is included)
B1. Only films in the newer, German version are included (either with a still or in a dedicated section)
B2. Only films in the newer, German version are included (only in the dedicated sections)
C1. Only films in the older, English PDF version are included (either with a still or in a dedicated section)
C2. Only films in the older, English PDF version are included (only in the dedicated sections)
D1. Films from both versions are included (either with a still or in a dedicated section)
D2. Films from both versions are included (only in the dedicated sections)

I personally favor option D1, but I am open to any result. If it is decided that we should go with A, the list should at least be worked over to make sure that the correct titles are chosen.

Greetings!
Josh

There's an "Index of English Film Titles" in the back of the book, so why not go with that?

[WalterNeff]

Most important would be to get your opinions on what version of the list should be the official one. These are the options I can think of:

A. The list stays in the current version (modeled after the English PDF, every film that gets mentioned in the book is included)
B1. Only films in the newer, German version are included (either with a still or in a dedicated section)
B2. Only films in the newer, German version are included (only in the dedicated sections)
C1. Only films in the older, English PDF version are included (either with a still or in a dedicated section)
C2. Only films in the older, English PDF version are included (only in the dedicated sections)
D1. Films from both versions are included (either with a still or in a dedicated section)
D2. Films from both versions are included (only in the dedicated sections)

I personally favor option D1, but I am open to any result. If it is decided that we should go with A, the list should at least be worked over to make sure that the correct titles are chosen.

Greetings!
Josh

There's an "Index of English Film Titles" in the back of the book, so why not go with that?

I'm fine with
A: Does not cost me an official check
B: Does not cost me an official check AND adds an official check, preferably an obtainable short.

[kongs_speech]

I believe A is the best option. I like the list how it is now.

[Quartoxuma]

There's an "Index of English Film Titles" in the back of the book, so why not go with that?

Like I said before, the list in its current version has "The Second in Command". That film is not in the index nor is it in any version of the book. It is simply a mistake that was passed on and never questioned.

There is a passing sentence about 'The Second Coming', which might equally be lost and if you read the quote from the book, he references someone talking about a film which might have featured a moving camera. From what I read here, Vogel never saw that film. So, why would it be included?

Though the camera had “moved” in Griffith and, according to
James Card, in William Adler’s The Second Coming (1915), (1)
It was Karl Freund’s moving camera in F.W. Murnau’s The Last
Laugh (1924) and E.A. Dupont’s Variety (1925) that served
as harbinger of a revolution which – with the development
of montage – transformed cinema into an art form.

[Quartoxuma]

I'm fine with
A: Does not cost me an official check
B: Does not cost me an official check AND adds an official check, preferably an obtainable short.

I haven't looked at it from a 'losing checks' perspective. I just created the list of the films that drop off this morning, but I can go over it and figure out 'why' they would drop off and maybe find a solution that is more check-friendly while still keeping the integrity of the book.

[joachimt]

I'm fine with
A: Does not cost me an official check
B: Does not cost me an official check AND adds an official check, preferably an obtainable short.

I haven't looked at it from a 'losing checks' perspective. I just created the list of the films that drop off this morning, but I can go over it and figure out 'why' they would drop off and maybe find a solution that is more check-friendly while still keeping the integrity of the book.

Never mind him. The importance is the best representation of the book. Losing checks is not a concern to mods.

[kongs_speech]

Losing checks is not a concern

See, this is the kind of hateful speech that shouldn't be allowed online.

[joachimt]

Losing checks is not a concern

See, this is the kind of hateful speech that shouldn't be allowed online.

Ignore me then.

[WalterNeff]

Losing checks is not a concern

See, this is the kind of hateful speech that shouldn't be allowed online.

Ignore me then.

We pretty much do

[Quartoxuma]

Losing checks is not a concern

See, this is the kind of hateful speech that shouldn't be allowed online.

Ignore me then.

Okay, but going through the list, I noticed at least one mistake I made. So I will quickly check the list I posted above just to make sure the impact is clear.