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: 1933 (Results), 1970s (May 29th)
Challenges: Japan, Mystery/Thriller, Western
Film of the Week: La donna del lago, June nominations (May 28th)

Which official lists shouldn't be official?

Post Reply
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11917
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#41

Post by mjf314 »

Here's a comparison of 3 lists (all are ranked):

Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official) vs Total Film's 50 Sequels That Were Better Than the Original
Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official) but not Total Film's 50 Sequels That Were Better Than the Original (20)
Total Film's 50 Sequels That Were Better Than the Original but not Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official) (20)
Both lists; ordered by Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official) rank (30)
Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official) vs Quentin Tarantino’s Top 50 Favorite Sequels
Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official) but not Quentin Tarantino’s Top 50 Favorite Sequels (38)
Quentin Tarantino’s Top 50 Favorite Sequels but not Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official) (38)
Both lists; ordered by Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official) rank (12)
Total Film's Total Film's 50 Sequels That Were Better Than the Original vs Quentin Tarantino’s Top 50 Favorite Sequels
Total Film's Total Film's 50 Sequels That Were Better Than the Original but not Quentin Tarantino’s Top 50 Favorite Sequels (35)
Quentin Tarantino’s Top 50 Favorite Sequels but not Total Film's Total Film's 50 Sequels That Were Better Than the Original (35)
Both lists; ordered by Total Film's Total Film's 50 Sequels That Were Better Than the Original rank (15)
Last edited by mjf314 on September 3rd, 2015, 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7149
Joined: May 17th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#42

Post by Gershwin »

The Total Film list is much better. It even has some of my favourites. ;)
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM
User avatar
DulceDoes
Posts: 1351
Joined: August 6th, 2012, 6:00 am
Contact:

#43

Post by DulceDoes »

mjf314 on Sep 2 2015, 09:43:35 PM wrote:
mjf314 on Sep 2 2015, 06:51:28 PM wrote:Here's a sequel list created by Tarantino: http://letterboxd.com/vanhammersly/list ... e-sequels/
Does anyone want to add this list to iCM so I can do a comparison?

Here's a comparison of the other 2 lists (both lists are ranked):

Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official) vs Total Film's 50 Sequels That Were Better Than the Original
Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official) but not Total Film's 50 Sequels That Were Better Than the Original (20)
Total Film's 50 Sequels That Were Better Than the Original but not Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official) (20)
Both lists; ordered by Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official) rank (30)
The Total Film list looks a little bit better to me, but neither list is great.
Here you go https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/quen ... daviddoes/
Limedebois
Posts: 3280
Joined: June 20th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#44

Post by Limedebois »

cinephage on Sep 2 2015, 06:54:37 PM wrote:I'm strongly against unadopting lists... This voting and freedom in the change of lists mostly makes things less simple.
What if one of these lists get unadopted, then readopted after an additional vote in one year ? As voters change from one time to another, this is quite possible.
I think the lists should stay as they are, as I hate standing on unstable ground. I don't mind the possibility to add more lists, the more the merrier, but unadopting lists is really unfriendly to those who worked on those lists.
And I'm strongly against keeping lists which proved that they were biased, bad, or dishonest. Of course, some (or a lot) might continue to like the list, but I can't imagine they like the list for what it is (a cooptation fraud), they like the films in it. It was unnecessary to make official a list with that amount a primitive films to hide the genuine purpose of the author. Falling into a trap is not that much a fault, unless you continue to argue while you are trapped that you're not; you just make the right move to leave a uncomfortable situation.

It's up to the mods, that's what they are assigned for, but if they forbid the the un-adoption for bad lists, or mistakes, that'd a bad move imo. The only issue here is if the Anthology list is that bad, or problematic. Forbid un-adoption, it's quite like an ideology. "No we can't!" "Hum, why?" "Because, it's forbidden."

About unfriendly to the poor workers, I'm one of them (and not necessary for good reasons), and talking for myself, I can say that I'm glad for having check a lot of these films (even though -- especially if -- I didn't like much) and I don't mind to lose these easy checks. I just don't think it's necessary for next generations of the next million centuries to watch thousands Méliès or Lumière films. And all other significant experimental works appear in other list. Unofficial or not. If these lists exist, maybe it would have been a better move to make them official instead of this one (same thing for the primitive French "vues").

(Actually, it's more embarrassing for Guy Rembrandt who drawn this beautiful icon. But I was told that useless icons had terrific value on black market. That's not an anthology, but that's a Rembrandt.)
User avatar
Lilarcor
Donator
Posts: 3089
Joined: June 14th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#45

Post by Lilarcor »

Limedebois on Sep 3 2015, 03:01:27 AM wrote:Of course, some (or a lot) might continue to like the list, but I can't imagine they like the list for what it is (a cooptation fraud), they like the films in it.
Pretty much. I think the quality of the list and its sources should go above all else and that you shouldn't be afraid of unadopting lists that clearly are not up to the standards that are set.
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 11372
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#46

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

Mjf could you add links to all lists in polls in the OP plz, so I/people don't have to search for them first on iCM to study them?
User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7149
Joined: May 17th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#47

Post by Gershwin »

About the IMDb genre lists: many of these don't make any sense, because genres on IMDb keep being changed. Therefore I voted for keeping the IMDb decade lists, but getting rid of the genre lists.

But there's a difference. Lists like independent, documentary, music, and drama are really all over the place, and I think we should at least unadopt these and find alternative lists. But of course lists from more closely defined genres like horror, western, film-noir, and sci-fi are a pretty good way to see which are the 50 most popular movies from one genre. Then there's a bunch in-between.
Last edited by Gershwin on September 3rd, 2015, 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM
User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13854
Joined: December 29th, 2011, 7:00 am
Contact:

#48

Post by brokenface »

Just cause I like making impractical suggestions, how about instead of completely unadopting lists you could 'retire' them - have it so the list no longer counts as official (not on progress page or film pages) but retains awards and the charts so people who have been working specifically on that list aren't totally hung out to dry. Think this would be good in cases like 500 horror
User avatar
bal3x
Donator
Posts: 13074
Joined: May 26th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#49

Post by bal3x »

Lilarcor on Sep 3 2015, 05:42:09 AM wrote:
Limedebois on Sep 3 2015, 03:01:27 AM wrote:Of course, some (or a lot) might continue to like the list, but I can't imagine they like the list for what it is (a cooptation fraud), they like the films in it.
Pretty much. I think the quality of the list and its sources should go above all else and that you shouldn't be afraid of unadopting lists that clearly are not up to the standards that are set.
Agree. I understand the argument that un-adopting might result in people left "hung out to dry" yet I think we need to realize that mistakes had been made in adopting some of the lists earlier (some official lists are really crappy and of dubious quality) and make a correction wherever possible, i.e. by replacing those with new better quality lists.
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#50

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

brokenface on Sep 3 2015, 07:34:21 AM wrote:Just cause I like making impractical suggestions, how about instead of completely unadopting lists you could 'retire' them - have it so the list no longer counts as official (not on progress page or film pages) but retains awards and the charts so people who have been working specifically on that list aren't totally hung out to dry. Think this would be good in cases like 500 horror
I have no idea what the guys would think of this, but I like this idea.
tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3646
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#51

Post by tommy_leazaq »

brokenface on Sep 3 2015, 07:34:21 AM wrote:Just cause I like making impractical suggestions, how about instead of completely unadopting lists you could 'retire' them - have it so the list no longer counts as official (not on progress page or film pages) but retains awards and the charts so people who have been working specifically on that list aren't totally hung out to dry. Think this would be good in cases like 500 horror
Just pretend the Horror 500 is not there in the progress page and film page. You'd still have your awards and rankings. :whistling:
Last edited by tommy_leazaq on September 3rd, 2015, 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Limedebois
Posts: 3280
Joined: June 20th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#52

Post by Limedebois »

PeacefulAnarchy on Sep 3 2015, 09:23:18 AM wrote:
brokenface on Sep 3 2015, 07:34:21 AM wrote:Just cause I like making impractical suggestions, how about instead of completely unadopting lists you could 'retire' them - have it so the list no longer counts as official (not on progress page or film pages) but retains awards and the charts so people who have been working specifically on that list aren't totally hung out to dry. Think this would be good in cases like 500 horror
I have no idea what the guys would think of this, but I like this idea.
The Unofficial Official Lists. That's the main contribution/suggestion appearing in the Unofficial Official iCM Forum.

I'm OK with this but it's a bit confusing to explain it in lists forms. "The Official Garbage Tab" or the "Anthology Archives Non-Essential List". Make sense. Tribute to Jonas Meckas, we can also name it "The mecca of the iCM Unofficial".
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11917
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#53

Post by mjf314 »

Lonewolf2003 on Sep 3 2015, 06:18:01 AM wrote:Mjf could you add links to all lists in polls in the OP plz, so I/people don't have to search for them first on iCM to study them?
Done.
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11917
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#54

Post by mjf314 »

Daviddoes on Sep 3 2015, 02:52:39 AM wrote:Here you go https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/quen ... daviddoes/
Thanks. Here are the comparisons of all 3 lists: http://www.icmforum.comsingle/?p=8558735&t=8048922

Which list is the best?
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2972
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#55

Post by Torgo »

Not a fan of Quentin's list, to be frank. Too many B-movies and Asian films which will put off most people who usually would be attracted to such a list.
The Total list is in fact better than our current Empire one. But is the improvement big enough to justify a replacement (something we rarely did on iCM)? I'm doubting it.

A combination of Empire + Total would result in the best and most complete sequel list, but that would be a bit too muddled even for my taste.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2972
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#56

Post by Torgo »

Amazing to see so much participation in the poll, by the way. Very insightful. :)

The support for separate Taschen decade lists has been no secret before, but I'm astonished how massive it is. :satstunned:
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11917
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#57

Post by mjf314 »

Torgo on Sep 3 2015, 01:01:41 PM wrote:Amazing to see so much participation in the poll, by the way. Very insightful. :)

The support for separate Taschen decade lists has been no secret before, but I'm astonished how massive it is. :satstunned:
It's strange that separate wins by such a huge margin in this poll, but in the "lists that should be official" poll, the combined list wins (#23 for combined, #63-74 for separate). How did that happen? Can anyone explain? Is the set of voters so different, or is there another reason?

The search for a good sequel list continues, but I think I'm about ready to give up. If anyone finds a better one, I'll make a new poll.
Last edited by mjf314 on September 3rd, 2015, 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7149
Joined: May 17th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#58

Post by Gershwin »

I think the combined list was earlier in the poll, so people thought "I already voted for the complete list, so no need to vote for the separate lists as well". And then there might be the people who are afraid separate lists would replace the IMDb lists, like Torgo said on the other thread, iirc.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM
User avatar
max-scl
Posts: 854
Joined: June 20th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

#59

Post by max-scl »

I don't know if you know about this one
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/best_sequels_2012/
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11917
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#60

Post by mjf314 »

max-scl on Sep 3 2015, 01:27:00 PM wrote:I don't know if you know about this one
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/best_sequels_2012/
I didn't know about that one, but I've seen other RT countdown lists. I'm not a big fan of them, but it looks like this one might be better than the others. Does anyone want to add it to iCM?
User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7149
Joined: May 17th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#61

Post by Gershwin »

mjf314 on Sep 3 2015, 01:33:00 PM wrote:
max-scl on Sep 3 2015, 01:27:00 PM wrote:I don't know if you know about this one
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/best_sequels_2012/
I didn't know about that one, but I've seen other RT countdown lists. I'm not a big fan of them, but it looks like this one might be better than the others. Does anyone want to add it to iCM?
This one looks pretty great, judging from the first page. I'm on it.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM
User avatar
max-scl
Posts: 854
Joined: June 20th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

#63

Post by max-scl »

Non of the sequels list will be perfect, why not combine all 4 of them in some sort of way (like a "They Shoot Sequels, Don't they" list) that can be updated with future list that may appear.
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11917
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#64

Post by mjf314 »

Daviddoes on Sep 3 2015, 03:33:40 PM wrote:Here it is https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/rott ... daviddoes/
Thanks.

Rotten Tomatoes' Best Sequels vs Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official)
Rotten Tomatoes' Best Sequels but not Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official) (30)
Empire Online's 50 Greatest Sequels (official) but not Rotten Tomatoes' Best Sequels (30)
Both lists; ordered by Rotten Tomatoes' Best Sequels rank (20)
Rotten Tomatoes' Best Sequels vs Total Film's 50 Sequels That Were Better Than the Original
Rotten Tomatoes' Best Sequels but not Total Film's 50 Sequels That Were Better Than the Original (24)
Total Film's 50 Sequels That Were Better Than the Original but not Rotten Tomatoes' Best Sequels (24)
Both lists; ordered by Rotten Tomatoes' Best Sequels rank (26)
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 11372
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#65

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

I think the Empire list is better based on how it's compiled. It's ranked by using a weighted formula on at least 20 reviews. I can't find how the Total list is compiled. The link to the source is dead. Which is also for me a reason to be against it already.
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 11372
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#66

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

max-scl on Sep 3 2015, 04:46:56 PM wrote:Non of the sequels list will be perfect, why not combine all 4 of them in some sort of way (like a "They Shoot Sequels, Don't they" list) that can be updated with future list that may appear.
Yeah, and none of all the French list are perfect either. Maybe we could combine those in a They Shoot French, Don't They List. Now I think of it none of the Japanese, German, Chinese list are perfect either...
bobbybrown
Posts: 0
Joined: December 26th, 2011, 7:00 am
Contact:

#67

Post by bobbybrown »

They Really Like To Plagiarize Movie List Titles, Don't They? :D
User avatar
max-scl
Posts: 854
Joined: June 20th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

#68

Post by max-scl »

Lonewolf2003 on Sep 4 2015, 04:56:41 AM wrote:
max-scl on Sep 3 2015, 04:46:56 PM wrote:Non of the sequels list will be perfect, why not combine all 4 of them in some sort of way (like a "They Shoot Sequels, Don't they" list) that can be updated with future list that may appear.
Yeah, and none of all the French list are perfect either. Maybe we could combine those in a They Shoot French, Don't They List. Now I think of it none of the Japanese, German, Chinese list are perfect either...
Perfect was not the right choice of words-
Yes, they are not perfect, but they're good enough. And when there are many good list from a particular country more than one list can be adopted (and it has). Which is not the case here, people seems to only want to have 1 sequels list, not 4.
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11917
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#69

Post by mjf314 »

Lonewolf2003 on Sep 4 2015, 04:53:56 AM wrote:I think the Empire list is better based on how it's compiled. It's ranked by using a weighted formula on at least 20 reviews. I can't find how the Total list is compiled. The link to the source is dead. Which is also for me a reason to be against it already.
Don't you mean the RT list? I don't think the Empire list is based on reviews.
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 11372
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#70

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

mjf314 on Sep 4 2015, 12:40:08 PM wrote:
Lonewolf2003 on Sep 4 2015, 04:53:56 AM wrote:I think the Empire list is better based on how it's compiled. It's ranked by using a weighted formula on at least 20 reviews. I can't find how the Total list is compiled. The link to the source is dead. Which is also for me a reason to be against it already.
Don't you mean the RT list? I don't think the Empire list is based on reviews.
Sorry yes meant the tomato list :pinch: :blush:
User avatar
Hunziker
Donator
Posts: 1294
Joined: November 3rd, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Guatemala
Contact:

#71

Post by Hunziker »

I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere, but why on earth is the All-Time Worldwide Box Office list still official? I can't be the only one who thinks this is a TERRIBLE list. I know the All Time Box Office list isn't ruled by the same criteria, but it should be enough, shouldn't it? I mean, what a bunch of stupid, preposterous and plain bad movies are official because of it. :yucky:
This is the voice of world control. 🤖 - iCM
Image
User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 465
Joined: May 6th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#72

Post by Tasselfoot »

I like the Total list 1st, Empire 2nd. What I dislike about the RT is that it uses multiple films from the same franchise over and over again. The Total list does not, unless it's a sequel to a reboot.

I've said before, as have many, All-Time Box Office should be capped at top200; then we have top200 US inflation adjusted and top200 worldwide non-inflation adjusted. Both lists continue to receive updates based on popular new films... but there is some level of finality to it. We go another few years and there will be 100+ films a year doing 200m worldwide (it's already 50+/yr).
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#73

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

The All-Time Worldwide list is going to have to be fixed in some way at some point. It's just that there's no obvious fix that doesn't have significant drawbacks, so for the time being it's easier to just copy the source.
Last edited by PeacefulAnarchy on September 23rd, 2015, 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bobbybrown
Posts: 0
Joined: December 26th, 2011, 7:00 am
Contact:

#74

Post by bobbybrown »

PeacefulAnarchy on Sep 23 2015, 12:40:14 PM wrote:The All-Time Worldwide list is going to have to be fixed in some way at some point. It's just that there's no obvious fix that doesn't have significant drawbacks, so for the time being it's easier to just copy the source.
What are the drawbacks of limiting it to Top-200 (or Top-500 so the change is less drastic) or bumping the minimum to $250/300 mln?
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#75

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

bobbybrown on Sep 23 2015, 12:49:35 PM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Sep 23 2015, 12:40:14 PM wrote:The All-Time Worldwide list is going to have to be fixed in some way at some point. It's just that there's no obvious fix that doesn't have significant drawbacks, so for the time being it's easier to just copy the source.
What are the drawbacks of limiting it to Top-200 (or Top-500 so the change is less drastic) or bumping the minimum to $250/300 mln?
The main one is that it cuts off whatever older films are on the list and essentially turns the list into a revolving door of increasingly popular recent films knocked out by equally popular more recent films.

You could argue that that's not particularly worse than having 50+ films per year of increasingly less meaningful popularity, still pushing old films down(but not out).

I'd say at the moment both are equally bad in slightly different, but related, ways so we may as well stick to the source, but I'm increasingly less inclined to support that position.
User avatar
Hunziker
Donator
Posts: 1294
Joined: November 3rd, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Guatemala
Contact:

#76

Post by Hunziker »

PeacefulAnarchy on Sep 23 2015, 12:57:19 PM wrote:
bobbybrown on Sep 23 2015, 12:49:35 PM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Sep 23 2015, 12:40:14 PM wrote:The All-Time Worldwide list is going to have to be fixed in some way at some point. It's just that there's no obvious fix that doesn't have significant drawbacks, so for the time being it's easier to just copy the source.
What are the drawbacks of limiting it to Top-200 (or Top-500 so the change is less drastic) or bumping the minimum to $250/300 mln?
The main one is that it cuts off whatever older films are on the list and essentially turns the list into a revolving door of increasingly popular recent films knocked out by equally popular more recent films.

You could argue that that's not particularly worse than having 50+ films per year of increasingly less meaningful popularity, still pushing old films down(but not out).

I'd say at the moment both are equally bad in slightly different, but related, ways so we may as well stick to the source, but I'm increasingly less inclined to support that position.
If both option are equally bad, shouldn't we vote for it or something? Or even just a poll, to cense the opinions...

That is the goal of this thread after all.
Last edited by Hunziker on September 23rd, 2015, 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is the voice of world control. 🤖 - iCM
Image
bobbybrown
Posts: 0
Joined: December 26th, 2011, 7:00 am
Contact:

#77

Post by bobbybrown »

PeacefulAnarchy on Sep 23 2015, 12:57:19 PM wrote:
bobbybrown on Sep 23 2015, 12:49:35 PM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Sep 23 2015, 12:40:14 PM wrote:The All-Time Worldwide list is going to have to be fixed in some way at some point. It's just that there's no obvious fix that doesn't have significant drawbacks, so for the time being it's easier to just copy the source.
What are the drawbacks of limiting it to Top-200 (or Top-500 so the change is less drastic) or bumping the minimum to $250/300 mln?
The main one is that it cuts off whatever older films are on the list and essentially turns the list into a revolving door of increasingly popular recent films knocked out by equally popular more recent films.
IIUC, you are arguing that raising the box-office requirement damages the list in a way that is qualitatively different from having a $200 mln limit at all, right? I hope I'm misunderstanding you, because that sounds really strange. :rolleyes: A list with a $200 mln limit is just as much a revolving door as one with $250 mln or any other kind of limit, and removing items from the list is kinda the same as preventing them from entering the list in the first place (I guess it feels worse?).
Last edited by bobbybrown on September 23rd, 2015, 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nopros
Donator
Posts: 2149
Joined: May 16th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#78

Post by Nopros »

I dont feel any offical list should be unadopted.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33920
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#79

Post by joachimt »

It's the 13th most favorited official list on ICM. I think a lot of mainstream members don't like to see this list change.

Stick to the source is my opinion.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 465
Joined: May 6th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#80

Post by Tasselfoot »

I'm a far more mainstream movie watcher than most forum members... I like the IMDb lists, I even like the top-grossing list. My issue is that it seems like you're just running up a mountain that will always grow taller as you get close to the top. There is never an end in sight. Capping it at a top-200 (or top-500, whatever the number is) gives it some level of finality and I'd actually want to work to finish it (183 of top 200 seen, but only 439 / 613). Then again, I'm also at 199/200 on the inflation-adjusted list... so it's a type of list I enjoy (will be 200 once I finally see Minions).

Granted, even with a capped number of films, new ones will appear every year. But that's fine. That happens in the IMDb Top250 and Award lists and TSPDT and 1001BYD; lots of lists get updates on the regular. But it's always finite, whether it's 200 or 250 or 1001. Or X number per year (ala Awards / Cahiers Top10).
Post Reply