Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
NOTE: Board emails should be working again. Information on forum upgrade and style issues.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 22 released November 17th * EXCLUSIVE * We Are Mentioned in a Book!!! Interview with Mary Guillermin on Rapture, JG & More)
Polls: Directors (Waiting for results), 1929 (Results), Directorial Debut Features (Mar 12th), DtC - Nominations (Mar 20th)
Challenges: Experimental/Avant Garde, Benelux, Run the Director
Film of the Week: Daisan no kagemusha, March nominations (Feb 26th)

Official lists updates

Post Reply
User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 5079
Joined: June 3rd, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

#3481

Post by Fergenaprido »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: January 10th, 2021, 9:21 pm 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?
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2074
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#3482

Post by Torgo »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: January 10th, 2021, 4:37 pm
dirty_score wrote: January 10th, 2021, 11:19 am I believe The Queen's Gambit should be eligible for :imdb: 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. :teehee:

dirty_score wrote: January 10th, 2021, 11:19 am 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. :think:
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 .. :whistling:
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#3483

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

Fergenaprido wrote: January 10th, 2021, 9:41 pm
PeacefulAnarchy wrote: January 10th, 2021, 9:21 pm 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.
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#3484

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

dirty_score wrote: January 10th, 2021, 9:41 pm
PeacefulAnarchy wrote: January 10th, 2021, 9:21 pm 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? :whistling:
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.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2074
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#3485

Post by Torgo »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: January 10th, 2021, 9:49 pm 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!
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#3486

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

Torgo wrote: January 10th, 2021, 10:05 pm
PeacefulAnarchy wrote: January 10th, 2021, 9:49 pm 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.
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 951
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Location: FL
Contact:

#3487

Post by 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.
Quartoxuma wrote: A deeply human, life-affirming disgusting check whore.
Image
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2074
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#3488

Post by Torgo »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: January 10th, 2021, 10:26 pm 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. :lol:


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. :teehee:
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 8905
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#3489

Post by xianjiro »

huh, maybe we need a separate list just for Planet docus
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 951
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Location: FL
Contact:

#3490

Post by 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.
Quartoxuma wrote: A deeply human, life-affirming disgusting check whore.
Image
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 31319
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#3491

Post by 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.
"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: 8905
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#3492

Post by 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.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33356
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#3493

Post by joachimt »

Torgo wrote: January 11th, 2021, 4:15 am
PeacefulAnarchy wrote: January 10th, 2021, 10:26 pm 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. :lol:
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.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#3494

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

Yeah, no video is a good rule that we already have.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33356
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#3495

Post by 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.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 951
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Location: FL
Contact:

#3496

Post by 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.
Quartoxuma wrote: A deeply human, life-affirming disgusting check whore.
Image
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 8905
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#3497

Post by xianjiro »

joachimt wrote: January 11th, 2021, 5:01 pm 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.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 6096
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#3498

Post by Onderhond »

Films (and one series).
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33356
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#3499

Post by joachimt »

Onderhond wrote: January 11th, 2021, 9:10 pm Films (and one series).
We thought about putting that in the title, but then it was too long again. :P
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 6096
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#3500

Post by Onderhond »

joachimt wrote: January 11th, 2021, 9:15 pm We thought about putting that in the title, but then it was too long again. :P
Long ... it's so relative when you think of how long 170x7 minutes claymation sheep really is.
dirty_score
Posts: 412
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#3501

Post by dirty_score »

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

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: January 10th, 2021, 10:26 pm 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! <_<
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2074
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#3502

Post by Torgo »

Onderhond wrote: January 11th, 2021, 9:21 pm 170x7 minutes claymation sheep
:lol:
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 8905
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#3503

Post by xianjiro »

as I said, Shawn Loves Sheep
User avatar
jeroeno
Posts: 3763
Joined: June 22nd, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Valkenswaard, The Netherlands
Contact:

#3504

Post by 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.
User avatar
Quartoxuma
Posts: 146
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#3505

Post by 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
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2074
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#3506

Post by Torgo »

Quartoxuma, this looks like some amazing, thorough research! :thumbsup: 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. :ICM:

jeroeno wrote: January 12th, 2021, 4:57 am
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" :ermm: 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. :mellow:
Mind that U2 3D isn't legally available as of now ..
User avatar
Timec
Posts: 1128
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#3507

Post by Timec »

Torgo wrote: January 12th, 2021, 3:19 pmWhat 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. :mellow:
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... :shrug:
User avatar
Quartoxuma
Posts: 146
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#3508

Post by Quartoxuma »

Torgo wrote: January 12th, 2021, 3:19 pm Quartoxuma, this looks like some amazing, thorough research! :thumbsup: 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. :ICM:
Didn't think about that. I just quickly referenced which films would leave the list. It comes down to these 53 films.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2074
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#3509

Post by 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.
User avatar
Quartoxuma
Posts: 146
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#3510

Post by Quartoxuma »

Torgo wrote: January 12th, 2021, 4:07 pm 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.
User avatar
Knaldskalle
Moderator
Posts: 10173
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: New Mexico, USA
Contact:

#3511

Post by Knaldskalle »

Quartoxuma wrote: January 12th, 2021, 11:47 am 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?
ImageImageImageImage

Please don't hurt yourself, talk to someone.
User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3315
Joined: July 27th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#3512

Post by WalterNeff »

Knaldskalle wrote: January 12th, 2021, 5:35 pm
Quartoxuma wrote: January 12th, 2021, 11:47 am 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.
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 951
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Location: FL
Contact:

#3513

Post by kongs_speech »

I believe A is the best option. I like the list how it is now.
Quartoxuma wrote: A deeply human, life-affirming disgusting check whore.
Image
User avatar
Quartoxuma
Posts: 146
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#3514

Post by Quartoxuma »

Knaldskalle wrote: January 12th, 2021, 5:35 pm 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.
User avatar
Quartoxuma
Posts: 146
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#3515

Post by Quartoxuma »

WalterNeff wrote: January 12th, 2021, 5:47 pm 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.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33356
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#3516

Post by joachimt »

Quartoxuma wrote: January 12th, 2021, 6:45 pm
WalterNeff wrote: January 12th, 2021, 5:47 pm 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.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 951
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Location: FL
Contact:

#3517

Post by kongs_speech »

joachimt wrote: January 12th, 2021, 6:52 pm Losing checks is not a concern
See, this is the kind of hateful speech that shouldn't be allowed online. :lol:
Quartoxuma wrote: A deeply human, life-affirming disgusting check whore.
Image
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33356
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#3518

Post by joachimt »

kongs_speech wrote: January 12th, 2021, 6:53 pm
joachimt wrote: January 12th, 2021, 6:52 pm Losing checks is not a concern
See, this is the kind of hateful speech that shouldn't be allowed online. :lol:
Ignore me then. :P
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3315
Joined: July 27th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#3519

Post by WalterNeff »

joachimt wrote: January 12th, 2021, 6:54 pm
kongs_speech wrote: January 12th, 2021, 6:53 pm
joachimt wrote: January 12th, 2021, 6:52 pm Losing checks is not a concern
See, this is the kind of hateful speech that shouldn't be allowed online. :lol:
Ignore me then. :P
We pretty much do
User avatar
Quartoxuma
Posts: 146
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#3520

Post by Quartoxuma »

joachimt wrote: January 12th, 2021, 6:54 pm
kongs_speech wrote: January 12th, 2021, 6:53 pm
joachimt wrote: January 12th, 2021, 6:52 pm Losing checks is not a concern
See, this is the kind of hateful speech that shouldn't be allowed online. :lol:
Ignore me then. :P
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.
Post Reply