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 (Results), 1929 (Results), Directorial Debut Features (Mar 12th), DtC - Nominations (Mar 20th), Favourite Movies (Mar 28th)
Challenges: UK/Ireland, Directed by Women, Waves from around the World
Film of the Week: Der Wald vor lauter Bäumen, April nominations (Apr 1st)

Which official lists shouldn't be official?

bobbybrown
Posts: 0
Joined: December 26th, 2011, 7:00 am
Contact:

#81

Post by bobbybrown »

joachimt on Sep 23 2015, 01:31:47 PM wrote: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.
But the list does change with time anyway by bloating and making it harder to complete/reach any awards. I doubt they like that. ;)

Scary stats: currently the list has almost 50% more movies than 4 years ago.
User avatar
bal3x
Donator
Posts: 13073
Joined: May 26th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#82

Post by bal3x »

bobbybrown on Sep 23 2015, 03:04:36 PM wrote:Scary stats: currently the list has almost 50% more movies than 4 years ago.
Boy, I never realized it got so huge! Never really paid any attention to it.. I have 240 checked and couldn't care less, but some people might be pissed that they cannot maintain a platinum on this one easily...
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#83

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

bal3x on Sep 23 2015, 03:23:05 PM wrote:
bobbybrown on Sep 23 2015, 03:04:36 PM wrote:Scary stats: currently the list has almost 50% more movies than 4 years ago.
Boy, I never realized it got so huge! Never really paid any attention to it.. I have 240 checked and couldn't care less, but some people might be pissed that they cannot maintain a platinum on this one easily...
Maintaining Plat is nearly impossible unless you like seeing blockbusters in the theatre. Maintaining Gold is easy if you're willing to sit through the stuff on the list.
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#84

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

bobbybrown on Sep 23 2015, 01:10:38 PM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Sep 23 2015, 12:57:19 PM wrote:
bobbybrown on Sep 23 2015, 12:49:35 PM wrote: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?).
Sorry I wasn't clear, I was responding to the first suggestion of having a fixed length limit. Having a higher dollar limit is just like the current list only shorter. It solves no actual problems with the list.

Current list over $200 million: Everything on the list stays, every year we get more new films and the $200 million mark is less and less meaningful because of inflation and wider distribution.

Increasing the limit to X million: The current bottom of the list gets cut off, eliminating some unworthy new films but also some worthy older films. Afterwards, though it's the same problems as the limit being over $200.

Top X films: With a hard cutoff the list doesn't explode, but every year films keep falling off, particularly and the list essentially becomes a "popular films from the last 10 years and a handful of all time blockbusters randomly thrown in" list.

The concern about removing films isn't really the new films (as you say it's like they never enter) but rather the old films. That drop off.

I would probably never support raising the limit to $250 million or $300 million or whatever. It's a stopgap solution with all the current problems. I would probably support making it a top X list and accepting that it's just a recent films list with a handful of older films, which is mostly what it is now I guess.
bobbybrown
Posts: 0
Joined: December 26th, 2011, 7:00 am
Contact:

#85

Post by bobbybrown »

@PeacefulAnarchy: I get it now. Indeed, neither solution looks perfect. We could continue to raise the $ bar every time the list starts to exceed a vaguely defined 'reasonable' size, but we may just as well avoid all that fuss and set a hard Top-X limit.

If the main concern is about old box office hits, how about adopting a separate list, say, for 3-5 biggest grossers per year from the 20th century (if such info is available)? In addition to a top-X limit to the current list. Seems like it'd solve all raised issues and even add additional value to the site.
User avatar
Hunziker
Donator
Posts: 1284
Joined: November 3rd, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Guatemala
Contact:

#86

Post by Hunziker »

bobbybrown on Sep 23 2015, 04:31:43 PM wrote:If the main concern is about old box office hits, how about adopting a separate list, say, for 3-5 biggest grossers per year from the 20th century (if such info is available)? In addition to a top-X limit to the current list. Seems like it'd solve all raised issues and even add additional value to the site.
That sounds reasonable enough. I like that. :thumbsup:
This is the voice of world control. 🤖 - iCM
Image
User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13821
Joined: December 29th, 2011, 7:00 am
Contact:

#87

Post by brokenface »

Hunziker on Sep 23 2015, 04:55:01 PM wrote:
bobbybrown on Sep 23 2015, 04:31:43 PM wrote:If the main concern is about old box office hits, how about adopting a separate list, say, for 3-5 biggest grossers per year from the 20th century (if such info is available)?
I think you can get the info for US grosses going back to about start of sound era. Worldwide, I don't think there are accurate figures until relatively recently
User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 465
Joined: May 6th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#88

Post by Tasselfoot »

brokenface on Sep 23 2015, 05:10:52 PM wrote:
Hunziker on Sep 23 2015, 04:55:01 PM wrote:
bobbybrown on Sep 23 2015, 04:31:43 PM wrote:If the main concern is about old box office hits, how about adopting a separate list, say, for 3-5 biggest grossers per year from the 20th century (if such info is available)?
I think you can get the info for US grosses going back to about start of sound era. Worldwide, I don't think there are accurate figures until relatively recently
Which is part of the reason the 1 list is us-only but the other is worldwide.
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#89

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

brokenface on Sep 23 2015, 05:10:52 PM wrote:
Hunziker on Sep 23 2015, 04:55:01 PM wrote:
bobbybrown on Sep 23 2015, 04:31:43 PM wrote:If the main concern is about old box office hits, how about adopting a separate list, say, for 3-5 biggest grossers per year from the 20th century (if such info is available)?
I think you can get the info for US grosses going back to about start of sound era. Worldwide, I don't think there are accurate figures until relatively recently
Yeah, this is the problem.

My personal preference would be yearly top 5s or something but yeah, that data is terribly inaccurate from a worldwide scale even as recently as the 1980s. We could just use US domestic figures for that list, I suppose. The list is pretty much all Hollywood anyway.
Last edited by PeacefulAnarchy on September 24th, 2015, 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3625
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#90

Post by tommy_leazaq »

All Time Box-Office list is awesome as it is.. It gave me official checks for Bad Teacher and Ugly Truth. :woot:

No need to tamper with a properly working list with a proper source. I guess the only lists that ever got tampered was IMDb lists but that's because the source itself ceased to exist which is not the case here. And "finishability" should never be a criteria for anything otherwise Uncle Amos should be the first one to go.
User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3323
Joined: July 27th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#91

Post by WalterNeff »

tommy_leazaq on Sep 23 2015, 08:08:51 PM wrote:All Time Box-Office list is awesome as it is.. It gave me official checks for Bad Teacher and Ugly Truth. :woot:

No need to tamper with a properly working list with a proper source. I guess the only lists that ever got tampered was IMDb lists but that's because the source itself ceased to exist which is not the case here. And "finishability" should never be a criteria for anything otherwise Uncle Amos should be the first one to go.
+1
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#92

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

tommy_leazaq on Sep 23 2015, 08:08:51 PM wrote:It gave me official checks for Bad Teacher and Ugly Truth. :woot:
Me too, but I'm not sure I consider that a good thing.
User avatar
Hunziker
Donator
Posts: 1284
Joined: November 3rd, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Guatemala
Contact:

#93

Post by Hunziker »

tommy_leazaq on Sep 23 2015, 08:08:51 PM wrote:All Time Box-Office list is awesome as it is.. It gave me official checks for Bad Teacher and Ugly Truth. :woot:
I don't know if I'm missing some kind of sarcasm here. I haven't seen Ugly Truth, but Bad Teacher was so bad it almost made me physically ill. Seriously, I don't see what redeeming qualities movies like Zohan or Grown Ups can possibly have. It's like the list of Adam Sandler's favorite movies. :angry:
Last edited by Hunziker on September 24th, 2015, 4:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is the voice of world control. 🤖 - iCM
Image
User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10893
Joined: January 22nd, 2013, 7:00 am
Contact:

#94

Post by funkybusiness »

Hunziker on Sep 23 2015, 10:21:52 PM wrote:
tommy_leazaq on Sep 23 2015, 08:08:51 PM wrote:All Time Box-Office list is awesome as it is.. It gave me official checks for Bad Teacher and Ugly Truth. :woot:
I don't know if I'm missing some kind of sarcasm here. I haven't seen Ugly Truth, but Bad Teacher was so bad it almost made me physically ill. Seriously, I don't see what redeeming qualities movies like Zohan or Grown Ups can possibly have. It's like the list of Adam Sandler's favorite movies. :angry:
... I think the point he was making is that the only good thing to come of watching those films is that they are official checks.
User avatar
45MinuteZoom
Posts: 213
Joined: September 8th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: DC
Contact:

#95

Post by 45MinuteZoom »

Hunziker on Sep 23 2015, 10:21:52 PM wrote:
tommy_leazaq on Sep 23 2015, 08:08:51 PM wrote:All Time Box-Office list is awesome as it is.. It gave me official checks for Bad Teacher and Ugly Truth. :woot:
I don't know if I'm missing some kind of sarcasm here. I haven't seen Ugly Truth, but Bad Teacher was so bad it almost made me physically ill. Seriously, I don't see what redeeming qualities movies like Zohan or Grown Ups can possibly have. It's like the list of Adam Sandler's favorite movies. :angry:
Well it does give a picture of what is generally popular or looked appealing to a majority of the population. I don't see how it's much different than bad movies on b-lists or cult lists, if you find you generally don't like them, then just stay away from the list.
Dimitris Psachos Springer
Posts: 873
Joined: August 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#96

Post by Dimitris Psachos Springer »

The problem with All Time Box Office is that its 200 million bucks limit is ambiguous to start with. Why not give it a proper top 100 (like its sister Box Office version) or top 250 (like the well-known IMDb) and get rid of the incessant additions?

To the ones who strongly support it: why not raise the bar with e.g. IMDb and make its full top 1000 the Official list?
Dimitris Psachos Springer
Posts: 873
Joined: August 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#97

Post by Dimitris Psachos Springer »

By the way, removing Top 500 Horror Films for an equally uneven list like They Shoot Zombies or Whatever, it's like saying Dead Silence and Skeleton Key (really????) deserve an official check: no fucking way.
Last edited by Dimitris Psachos Springer on September 24th, 2015, 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3625
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#98

Post by tommy_leazaq »

Dimitris Psachos Springer on Sep 24 2015, 06:44:52 AM wrote:The problem with All Time Box Office is that its 200 million bucks limit is ambiguous to start with. Why not give it a proper top 100 (like its sister Box Office version) or top 250 (like the well-known IMDb) and get rid of the incessant additions?

To the ones who strongly support it: why not raise the bar with e.g. IMDb and make its full top 1000 the Official list?
Well, the 200m$ limit is set by the source i.e. BoxOfficeMojo, not by anyone among us. The source keep on increasing so does our list, just like Criterion list.I'm a supporter of Boxoffice list and I'm perfectly alright if BOM raises the limit to 2 Billion $ and have only Avatar and Titanic in the list. The point is, there is a well defined source for this list and we should not tamper with it.

And, if there is a well defined source for IMDb Top 1000, then why not? And while we are at it, why not have TSPDT starting list of 13216 films. At least, there is a well defined source for that. :P
Last edited by tommy_leazaq on September 24th, 2015, 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3625
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#99

Post by tommy_leazaq »

And I really like how some of us think "Official" check status is something like a Holy Grail for a movie and a movie should deserve that status.. :lol:
User avatar
45MinuteZoom
Posts: 213
Joined: September 8th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: DC
Contact:

#100

Post by 45MinuteZoom »

Official checks should be saved for respected movies that are practically impossible to find. Easy way to catch cheaters. Users should need to be pursuing advanced film degrees so that they can view Library of Congress copies for research.
bobbybrown
Posts: 0
Joined: December 26th, 2011, 7:00 am
Contact:

#101

Post by bobbybrown »

tommy_leazaq on Sep 24 2015, 10:05:47 AM wrote:And I really like how some of us think "Official" check status is something like a Holy Grail for a movie and a movie should deserve that status.. :lol:
If anything, it's the immutability and intactness of the source that is held as the holy grail. :P As for me, I'd remove all impossible-to-check-without-moving-your-ass movies from all lists. If one can't get it through clandestine maritime activity, move it to list's description as we already do with some lost films and those without IMDb entry. Down with the tyranny of sources.
Dimitris Psachos Springer
Posts: 873
Joined: August 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#102

Post by Dimitris Psachos Springer »

So ICM's "Official" lists are about quantity, not quality. Right. So whether it's Doubling the Canon / Criterion or All Time Box Office / Bad Movies.org, same difference, huh?

However, I will agree about one thing: unavailable films which possess and official status just like your Library of Congress example or several Brief Encounters / Anthology Series / Amos Vogel selections.
Last edited by Dimitris Psachos Springer on September 24th, 2015, 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
45MinuteZoom
Posts: 213
Joined: September 8th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: DC
Contact:

#103

Post by 45MinuteZoom »

Dimitris Psachos Springer on Sep 24 2015, 12:41:42 PM wrote:So ICM's "Official" lists are about quantity, not quality. Right. So whether it's Doubling the Canon / Criterion or All Time Box Office / Bad Movies.org, same difference, huh?
Official lists should be about having a variety of lists on different topics. As long as a movie fits the specifications of the list, I think "quality" is much less important.
Jay Mars
Posts: 2016
Joined: January 22nd, 2013, 7:00 am
Location: Orange County, California
Contact:

#104

Post by Jay Mars »

45MinuteZoom is my new favorite forum member.
User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 465
Joined: May 6th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#105

Post by Tasselfoot »

I put together a list of Top 5 Grossing from 1975 onward. It has lots and lots of sequels.
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/year ... asselfoot/

Took me 3 different sources to fully compile. BOM only has worldwide listed going back to 1989 and domestic to 1980. I had to use another, seemingly less quality source for 1975-79. If I made any mistakes, let me know. And 5 per year was fully arbitrary... could re-do it with more or less, or 5 per year through 1988 and 10 per year from 1989 onward, etc. I've seen 181/200 (pure coincidence that there are currently exactly 200 films on the list).
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Posts: 11744
Joined: May 29th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#106

Post by Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi »

Tasselfoot on Sep 26 2015, 01:01:51 PM wrote:I put together a list of Top 5 Grossing from 1975 onward. It has lots and lots of sequels.
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/year ... asselfoot/

Took me 3 different sources to fully compile. BOM only has worldwide listed going back to 1989 and domestic to 1980. I had to use another, seemingly less quality source for 1975-79. If I made any mistakes, let me know. And 5 per year was fully arbitrary... could re-do it with more or less, or 5 per year through 1988 and 10 per year from 1989 onward, etc. I've seen 181/200 (pure coincidence that there are currently exactly 200 films on the list).
Interesting to see a shift over time. From the start of the list for about 30 years, it's just a list of popular, highly mainstream films, but then by about 2007 the list becomes unwatchable for me, with a focus on tween franchises and other such stuff.
Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13434
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#107

Post by Cippenham »

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Sep 26 2015, 01:36:33 PM wrote:
Tasselfoot on Sep 26 2015, 01:01:51 PM wrote:I put together a list of Top 5 Grossing from 1975 onward. It has lots and lots of sequels.
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/year ... asselfoot/

Took me 3 different sources to fully compile. BOM only has worldwide listed going back to 1989 and domestic to 1980. I had to use another, seemingly less quality source for 1975-79. If I made any mistakes, let me know. And 5 per year was fully arbitrary... could re-do it with more or less, or 5 per year through 1988 and 10 per year from 1989 onward, etc. I've seen 181/200 (pure coincidence that there are currently exactly 200 films on the list).
Interesting to see a shift over time. From the start of the list for about 30 years, it's just a list of popular, highly mainstream films, but then by about 2007 the list becomes unwatchable for me, with a focus on tween franchises and other such stuff.
Interesting I have given up on Box office list and have seen all but 7 on this list
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:
User avatar
bal3x
Donator
Posts: 13073
Joined: May 26th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#108

Post by bal3x »

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Sep 26 2015, 01:36:33 PM wrote:
Tasselfoot on Sep 26 2015, 01:01:51 PM wrote:I put together a list of Top 5 Grossing from 1975 onward. It has lots and lots of sequels.
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/year ... asselfoot/

Took me 3 different sources to fully compile. BOM only has worldwide listed going back to 1989 and domestic to 1980. I had to use another, seemingly less quality source for 1975-79. If I made any mistakes, let me know. And 5 per year was fully arbitrary... could re-do it with more or less, or 5 per year through 1988 and 10 per year from 1989 onward, etc. I've seen 181/200 (pure coincidence that there are currently exactly 200 films on the list).
Interesting to see a shift over time. From the start of the list for about 30 years, it's just a list of popular, highly mainstream films, but then by about 2007 the list becomes unwatchable for me, with a focus on tween franchises and other such stuff.
2007?? I'd say 1999 since The Matrix, - all blockbusters I'd seen since then have been pretty much awful, with the exception of the Bond films.
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Posts: 11744
Joined: May 29th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#109

Post by Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi »

bal3x on Sep 26 2015, 01:53:43 PM wrote:
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Sep 26 2015, 01:36:33 PM wrote:
Tasselfoot on Sep 26 2015, 01:01:51 PM wrote:I put together a list of Top 5 Grossing from 1975 onward. It has lots and lots of sequels.
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/year ... asselfoot/

Took me 3 different sources to fully compile. BOM only has worldwide listed going back to 1989 and domestic to 1980. I had to use another, seemingly less quality source for 1975-79. If I made any mistakes, let me know. And 5 per year was fully arbitrary... could re-do it with more or less, or 5 per year through 1988 and 10 per year from 1989 onward, etc. I've seen 181/200 (pure coincidence that there are currently exactly 200 films on the list).
Interesting to see a shift over time. From the start of the list for about 30 years, it's just a list of popular, highly mainstream films, but then by about 2007 the list becomes unwatchable for me, with a focus on tween franchises and other such stuff.
2007?? I'd say 1999 since The Matrix, - all blockbusters I'd seen since then have been pretty much awful, with the exception of the Bond films.
For me, there's good and bad fare on the list right from the start, but they're all lowest-common-denominator, crowd-pleasers, for better or worse. But to me there's a shift on that list from about 2007, when it's no longer stuff aimed at the broadest demographic, but stuff aimed only at certain demographics.

Hard to put the sea shift I see there in precise words.
User avatar
Lammetje
Donator
Posts: 4100
Joined: October 4th, 2013, 6:00 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

#110

Post by Lammetje »

Tasselfoot on Sep 26 2015, 01:01:51 PM wrote:I put together a list of Top 5 Grossing from 1975 onward. It has lots and lots of sequels.
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/year ... asselfoot/

Took me 3 different sources to fully compile. BOM only has worldwide listed going back to 1989 and domestic to 1980. I had to use another, seemingly less quality source for 1975-79. If I made any mistakes, let me know. And 5 per year was fully arbitrary... could re-do it with more or less, or 5 per year through 1988 and 10 per year from 1989 onward, etc. I've seen 181/200 (pure coincidence that there are currently exactly 200 films on the list).
Yep, that's a lot of sequels. From 2004 onward I haven't seen much, with the exception of 2012 (the year, not the movie).
Last edited by Lammetje on September 27th, 2015, 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
iCM | IMDb | Last.fm | Listal

Image
OldAle1 wrote:I think four Aamir Khan films is enough for me. Unless I'm down to one film left on the IMDb Top 250 at some point and he's in that last film, at which point I'll watch it and then shoot myself having become the official-check-whoring person I hate.
More memorable quotes
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:Active topics is the devil. Please use the forums and subforums as intended and peruse all the topics nicely sorted by topic, not just the currently popular ones displayed in a jumbled mess.
maxwelldeux wrote:If you asked me to kill my wife and pets OR watch Minions, I'd check the runtime and inquire about sobriety requirements before providing an answer.
Torgo wrote:Lammetje is some kind of hybrid Anna-Kendrick-lamb-entity to me and I find that very cool.
monty wrote:If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. iCM ain't for sissies.
mightysparks wrote:ARGH. RARGH. RARGH. DIE.
Kowry wrote:Thanks, Art Garfunky.
Rich wrote:*runs*
User avatar
bal3x
Donator
Posts: 13073
Joined: May 26th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#111

Post by bal3x »

Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Sep 26 2015, 02:33:07 PM wrote:
bal3x on Sep 26 2015, 01:53:43 PM wrote:
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi on Sep 26 2015, 01:36:33 PM wrote:Interesting to see a shift over time. From the start of the list for about 30 years, it's just a list of popular, highly mainstream films, but then by about 2007 the list becomes unwatchable for me, with a focus on tween franchises and other such stuff.
2007?? I'd say 1999 since The Matrix, - all blockbusters I'd seen since then have been pretty much awful, with the exception of the Bond films.
For me, there's good and bad fare on the list right from the start, but they're all lowest-common-denominator, crowd-pleasers, for better or worse. But to me there's a shift on that list from about 2007, when it's no longer stuff aimed at the broadest demographic, but stuff aimed only at certain demographics.

Hard to put the sea shift I see there in precise words.
Well, to be fair "right from the start" we have films like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Dog Day Afternoon and Rocky and now we have The Da Vinci Code, Mamma Mia! and 2012... I trust even the biggest fans of these can admit the downhill trend...
User avatar
45MinuteZoom
Posts: 213
Joined: September 8th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: DC
Contact:

#112

Post by 45MinuteZoom »

bal3x on Sep 26 2015, 03:42:27 PM wrote:Well, to be fair "right from the start" we have films like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Dog Day Afternoon and Rocky and now we have The Da Vinci Code, Mamma Mia! and 2012... I trust even the biggest fans of these can admit the downhill trend...
Nah, it just happens that a few well respected movies are in the beginning. Looking through the list, not a whole lot more like that, maybe Tootsie.

Other than that, the list is sequels, remakes, comedies, and blockbusters for all of the years. King Kong, Jaws II, Wargames, Gremlins, Rocky III...
Last edited by 45MinuteZoom on September 26th, 2015, 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Knaldskalle
Moderator
Posts: 10203
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: New Mexico, USA
Contact:

#113

Post by Knaldskalle »

I think perhaps we should just acknowledge that the list, both in conception and execution, is inherently problematic to most of us. We want lists to be more than just a hodgepodge of whatever was popular at any given moment and this list won't ever be anything other than just that.
ImageImageImageImage

Please don't hurt yourself, talk to someone.
User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 465
Joined: May 6th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#114

Post by Tasselfoot »

Oscar nominated/winning films used to also be top grossing... but not in a while. Inception and Toy Story 3 were the last to be nominated. LotR: Return of the King was the last to win. Gladiator and Titanic, too. Many more before then.
Dimitris Psachos Springer
Posts: 873
Joined: August 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#115

Post by Dimitris Psachos Springer »

joachimt on Sep 23 2015, 01:31:47 PM wrote: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.
So you don't really mind if this becomes the largest in terms of quantity "official list" on this site, surpassing even Doubling the Canon and the They Shoot lists as well, increasing its never-ending catalogue to who the bleep knows where?

They way things are, All-Time is perhaps the only list possible to achieve a magnitude of say, top 1500 films. Bypassing the "quality" argument (it IS one of the worst "official checks" lists), why should this fucked up list be the only one to reach 1500 Official films? How about a top 2000 Doubling the Canon?
Last edited by Dimitris Psachos Springer on October 12th, 2015, 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33455
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#116

Post by joachimt »

Dimitris Psachos Springer on Oct 12 2015, 02:08:00 AM wrote:
joachimt on Sep 23 2015, 01:31:47 PM wrote: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.
So you don't really mind if this becomes the largest in terms of quantity "official list" on this site, surpassing even Doubling the Canon and the They Shoot lists as well, increasing its never-ending catalogue to who the bleep knows where?

They way things are, All-Time is perhaps the only list possible to achieve a magnitude of say, top 1500 films. Bypassing the "quality" argument (it IS one of the worst "official checks" lists), why should this fucked up list be the only one to reach 1500 Official films? How about a top 2000 Doubling the Canon?
No, I don't really mind. I would prefer if IMDB would use some kind of inflation-formula, but if they don't, I don't think we should.

When you say "it IS one of the worst "official checks" lists" and "fucked up list", I say "get off your high horse".
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11677
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#117

Post by mjf314 »

joachimt on Oct 12 2015, 02:57:59 AM wrote:When you say "it IS one of the worst "official checks" lists" and "fucked up list", I say "get off your high horse".
Now you got me curious. I wonder what the average iCM user thinks - not of the list itself, but of the films on the list.

I did this calculation for each film, and then calculated the average:
(favorites-dislikes) / (checks+50)

I know this isn't a perfect way to measure, and is less reliable for lists with too many obscure films, but it's just a rough estimate.
Spoiler: click to toggle
All-Time Worldwide Box office
Mean: 1.60%
Median: 1.28%

And some other lists for comparison:

IMDb Top 250
Mean: 9.32%
Median: 8.87%

500<400
Mean: 7.59%
Median: 7.14%

366 Weird Movies
Mean: 6.03%
Median: 6.57%

500 Cult Films
Mean: 5.28%
Median: 5.04%

Academy Award Best Picture Nominees
Mean: 4.74%
Median: 4.51%

Most checked
Mean: 4.73%
Median: 4.12%

Box office (adjusted for inflation)
Mean: 3.04%
Median: 2.50%

TSZDT
Mean: 2.62%
Median: 2.11%

Badmovies
Mean: -0.96%
Median: -1.03%
Based on these stats, the films on the box office list are not very popular among iCM users (compared to the films on other lists), which makes me wonder, why do so many iCM users favorite the list?
Last edited by mjf314 on October 12th, 2015, 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33455
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#118

Post by joachimt »

mjf314 on Oct 12 2015, 03:39:30 AM wrote:Based on these stats, the films on the box office list are not very popular among iCM users (compared to the films on other lists), which makes me wonder, why do so many iCM users favorite the list?
Maybe they enjoy a list of popular mainstream movies to have fun with. That's how I use this list once in a while, if I want a movie to watch with my wife. For that reason I value the list, but the chance of me favoriting a movie on it is very small.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11677
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#119

Post by mjf314 »

joachimt on Oct 12 2015, 04:52:15 AM wrote:
mjf314 on Oct 12 2015, 03:39:30 AM wrote:Based on these stats, the films on the box office list are not very popular among iCM users (compared to the films on other lists), which makes me wonder, why do so many iCM users favorite the list?
Maybe they enjoy a list of popular mainstream movies to have fun with. That's how I use this list once in a while, if I want a movie to watch with my wife. For that reason I value the list, but the chance of me favoriting a movie on it is very small.
Do you really want to watch a film like The Last Airbender with your wife? Aren't there better mainstream lists? Take a look at this page. It's as mainstream as the box office list but not quite as trashy.

Do you ever watch non-English-language films with your wife? There are mainstream ones that she would like, but they don't often show up on the box office list.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2203
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#120

Post by Torgo »

Dimitris Psachos Springer on Oct 12 2015, 02:08:00 AM wrote:
joachimt on Sep 23 2015, 01:31:47 PM wrote: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.
So you don't really mind if this becomes the largest in terms of quantity "official list" on this site, surpassing even Doubling the Canon and the They Shoot lists as well, increasing its never-ending catalogue to who the bleep knows where?

They way things are, All-Time is perhaps the only list possible to achieve a magnitude of say, top 1500 films. Bypassing the "quality" argument (it IS one of the worst "official checks" lists), why should this fucked up list be the only one to reach 1500 Official films? How about a top 2000 Doubling the Canon?
You're dramatizing events. Box Office is bloating and growing by more and more shitty movies each year, but it also just passed the 600-mark. So there's still some time left until it reaches the 1000, 3 years at least and who knows what happens with iCM until then - iCM 3.0 might get live by then ( :D ) and already sort things out. Or IMDb determines a higher threshold (to similarly bad results, as we figured out).


That said, there is hardly another list with so many pieces of trash, no doubts about that; but I'm always relieved when atrocities like Pixels or San Andreas enter the list so I can take at least one bit of retribution out of my wasted time and nerves - in form of a neat, official check. :lol:
Post Reply