Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Polls: Directors (Results), 2019 (Results), Mini-series (Feb 29th), 2009 awards (Mar 3rd), Favorite Movies (Mar 21st), Doubling the Canon (Mar ??)
Challenges: Academy Awards, Africa, African American/Blaxploitation
Film of the Week: Doa al karawan, March nominations (Feb 28th)
World Cup S4: Round 1 schedule, 1D: Australia vs Hungary vs Portugal vs Tajikistan (Mar 1st), 1E: Czechia vs France vs Georgia vs Mexico (Mar 18th)

How to deal with All-Time Worldwide Box office

Post Reply
User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3113
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

How to deal with All-Time Worldwide Box office

#121

Post by WalterNeff » January 21st, 2016, 1:02 am

monty on Jan 20 2016, 05:48:33 PM wrote:
mightysparks on Jan 20 2016, 04:51:55 PM wrote:
monty on Jan 20 2016, 04:48:19 PM wrote:A top 1000 is too much for any genre, horror in particular.
Because you don't like it? And I'm pretty sure that anyone who knows anything about horror would disagree with you. But as I said, this is another discussion and one that I'm not interested in AGAIN.
Like I said, a top 1000 is too much for any genre. Whether I like your list is neither here nor there , the fact is that a top 1000 genre list like yours should never have been adopted as it's far too high a number of entries for any official genre list.
Except, of course, for Film Noir

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12976
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#122

Post by Cippenham » January 21st, 2016, 6:05 am

monty on Jan 20 2016, 05:48:33 PM wrote:
mightysparks on Jan 20 2016, 04:51:55 PM wrote:
monty on Jan 20 2016, 04:48:19 PM wrote:A top 1000 is too much for any genre, horror in particular.
Because you don't like it? And I'm pretty sure that anyone who knows anything about horror would disagree with you. But as I said, this is another discussion and one that I'm not interested in AGAIN.
Like I said, a top 1000 is too much for any genre. Whether I like your list is neither here nor there , the fact is that a top 1000 genre list like yours should never have been adopted as it's far too high a number of entries for any official genre list.
I think it was a deserved reward for such a great effort although otherwise it appears monty is right. I hope Westerns are going to get such a list in due course..
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7079
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#123

Post by xianjiro » January 21st, 2016, 8:55 am

one person's irrelevance is another's relevance

both noir and horror seem overly represented though both had their box office hits in the day - one value to finding a good representation of those box office wonders is to see some duplication. 'Oh, so Nightmare Y did that much at the box office?!?' It's also interesting to see what were the hits of the 50s - how many were noir and how many were still MGM musicals, but I must have missed that 1000 Best Musicals lists somewhere.

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

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7079
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#124

Post by xianjiro » January 21st, 2016, 8:59 am

And yes, I get that we won't be able to have Worldwide Box Office Smashes of 30s. A simple disclaimer should suffice - worldwide figures have only been available in a meaningful way since 19XY - maybe earlier lists (pre-70s?) are fifty titles long, and after are 100 titles - whatever makes the lists, and iCM, more robust

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

Samlion
Posts: 618
Joined: Sep 03, 2012
Location: Paris
Contact:

#125

Post by Samlion » January 21st, 2016, 10:35 am

mightysparks on Jan 20 2016, 04:37:42 PM wrote:
Samlion on Jan 20 2016, 08:50:39 AM wrote:i don't want to reboot the debate about the TSZDT
however, let me guess "why people keep bringing up the '1000 horror' list" :mw_confused: :mw_confused: :mw_confused:
maybe because many people think that 1000 movies for one genre is way too big. don't get me wrong, this can apply to all the genre and not only horror
in my example, i quote also the 21th century which only represents 15 years among 115 years of cinema history. why the other decades have not the same treatement :mw_confused:
Yes, but what has that got to do with a discussion about the box office list? It wasn't just you that brought it up, but it's such an irrelevant point to bring up that seems like people just want to make sure they get their digs in. A top 1000 for most genres would be too much, but since this is supposed to be a discussion about how to deal with the box office list, bringing up genre lists and other such things is unnecessary.
:troll: :facepalm:
i don't want to write what i really think (OMG) in order to not discuss (and it can goes forever) about something else than BO in this thread
Last edited by Samlion on January 21st, 2016, 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23810
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#126

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » January 24th, 2016, 7:12 pm

PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 19 2016, 06:48:26 PM wrote:Leave it alone: This is what we've been doing for the last few years, and I think the time for that has passed. Even as recently as last year when the mods discussed this "leave it alone" was our conclusion. Now imdb spurred us to reexamine and we all agreed to change (some more eager than others, admittedly). It's a losing proposition that just kicks the bucket forward and I don't see this as reasonable for the site anymore.
We have a winner. It seems the other alternatives aren't satisfactory so we'll just stick with the $200M cutoff as it is on BOM for now. Yes this means the list will keep growing by larger and larger amounts each year.

I still don't think this is the right solution, I think it makes the list lose its representation of box office success and popularity when you have over 30 films making the list every year, but there's no point in doing this change if its going to upset so many people.
Last edited by PeacefulAnarchy on January 24th, 2016, 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
monclivie
Posts: 349
Joined: Sep 13, 2011
Location: Poland
Contact:

#127

Post by monclivie » January 24th, 2016, 8:42 pm

Yay! :party:

..or not.
Image
Last edited by monclivie on January 24th, 2016, 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ChrisReynolds
Donator
Posts: 2500
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

#128

Post by ChrisReynolds » January 24th, 2016, 11:51 pm

PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 24 2016, 12:12:10 PM wrote:I still don't think this is the right solution, I think it makes the list lose its representation of box office success and popularity when you have over 30 films making the list every year, but there's no point in doing this change if its going to upset so many people.
Over 40 at this point. 2014 has 43 films on the list. The longer this is put off the worse the situation with films losing official status will become, and the list could potentially reach 1000 films by the end of 2021. Below is a possible projection I made.

Image

Other lists have films falling off the bottom as new films enter. I don't see why the box office list should be an exception.

MMDan
Posts: 191
Joined: Jan 10, 2016
Contact:

#129

Post by MMDan » January 25th, 2016, 12:40 am

ChrisReynolds on Jan 24 2016, 04:51:42 PM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 24 2016, 12:12:10 PM wrote:I still don't think this is the right solution, I think it makes the list lose its representation of box office success and popularity when you have over 30 films making the list every year, but there's no point in doing this change if its going to upset so many people.
Over 40 at this point. 2014 has 43 films on the list. The longer this is put off the worse the situation with films losing official status will become, and the list could potentially reach 1000 films by the end of 2021. Below is a possible projection I made.

Image

Other lists have films falling off the bottom as new films enter. I don't see why the box office list should be an exception.
Not if their is another recession, maybe that'll slow it down. I think the list acts as interesting artifact in the rise of global box office power.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12976
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#130

Post by Cippenham » January 25th, 2016, 5:36 am

PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 24 2016, 12:12:10 PM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 19 2016, 06:48:26 PM wrote:Leave it alone: This is what we've been doing for the last few years, and I think the time for that has passed. Even as recently as last year when the mods discussed this "leave it alone" was our conclusion. Now imdb spurred us to reexamine and we all agreed to change (some more eager than others, admittedly). It's a losing proposition that just kicks the bucket forward and I don't see this as reasonable for the site anymore.
We have a winner. It seems the other alternatives aren't satisfactory so we'll just stick with the $200M cutoff as it is on BOM for now. Yes this means the list will keep growing by larger and larger amounts each year.

I still don't think this is the right solution, I think it makes the list lose its representation of box office success and popularity when you have over 30 films making the list every year, but there's no point in doing this change if its going to upset so many people.
I already stopped trying to keep up with it so will stick with that and ignore it, with a 500 list I had a chance but not now , but I understand.. :down:
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7079
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#131

Post by xianjiro » January 25th, 2016, 8:48 am

Phew! :relief:

And here I thought the work I'd put in of two box office smashes a week was going to be all for naught.

Well, next week I'll have off - except I see I'll get The Martian (after a long wait) on Friday. So, baring any NEW inductees, I will have only one title (That Force Wakes Up) on the short list to be at 100% and fewer than 100 titles to see on the ever longer long list! My goal relative to the long box office list was to keep over the 90% bar and put my efforts into lists that I haven't made the 50% bar yet.

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

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3523
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#132

Post by tommy_leazaq » January 25th, 2016, 9:55 am

PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 24 2016, 12:12:10 PM wrote:Yes this means the list will keep growing by larger and larger amounts each year.
And finally in 2020, the list would be capped at 1000 films.. Great..!! :thumbsup:

Bobby Peru
Posts: 529
Joined: May 08, 2011
Location: Southampton, England
Contact:

#133

Post by Bobby Peru » January 25th, 2016, 2:04 pm

PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 24 2016, 12:12:10 PM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 19 2016, 06:48:26 PM wrote:Leave it alone: This is what we've been doing for the last few years, and I think the time for that has passed. Even as recently as last year when the mods discussed this "leave it alone" was our conclusion. Now imdb spurred us to reexamine and we all agreed to change (some more eager than others, admittedly). It's a losing proposition that just kicks the bucket forward and I don't see this as reasonable for the site anymore.
We have a winner. It seems the other alternatives aren't satisfactory so we'll just stick with the $200M cutoff as it is on BOM for now. Yes this means the list will keep growing by larger and larger amounts each year.

I still don't think this is the right solution, I think it makes the list lose its representation of box office success and popularity when you have over 30 films making the list every year, but there's no point in doing this change if its going to upset so many people.
So popular opinion wins. Yay for democracy. :)

mathiasa
Posts: 2391
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#134

Post by mathiasa » January 25th, 2016, 6:01 pm

It's sad that we don't deal with the problem now as we eventually will have to - if not now, then in a few years and people working on this list will then only be upset even more.

I also fail to see how the decision to postpone the solving of the issue is in accordance with popular opinion - Did I miss a poll about this? Reading the posts on this matter, it is rather clear to me that the vast majority understands the problem caused by inflation with this list.
Last edited by mathiasa on January 25th, 2016, 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23810
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#135

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » January 25th, 2016, 6:11 pm

Bobby Peru on Jan 25 2016, 07:04:58 AM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 24 2016, 12:12:10 PM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 19 2016, 06:48:26 PM wrote:Leave it alone: This is what we've been doing for the last few years, and I think the time for that has passed. Even as recently as last year when the mods discussed this "leave it alone" was our conclusion. Now imdb spurred us to reexamine and we all agreed to change (some more eager than others, admittedly). It's a losing proposition that just kicks the bucket forward and I don't see this as reasonable for the site anymore.
We have a winner. It seems the other alternatives aren't satisfactory so we'll just stick with the $200M cutoff as it is on BOM for now. Yes this means the list will keep growing by larger and larger amounts each year.

I still don't think this is the right solution, I think it makes the list lose its representation of box office success and popularity when you have over 30 films making the list every year, but there's no point in doing this change if its going to upset so many people.
So popular opinion wins. Yay for democracy. :)
I honestly don't know what popular opinion is, as you can see from the last few responses, or by rereading the thread, there are many who supported the (or at least a) change. At the same time, there are more people who dislike the change than we would have thought. It didn't seem like the change would be this controversial, given views expressed in the past and the many comments on the list itself by people not on the forum asking for it to be capped for years. Our intention was to make the list remain meaningful and relevant while still being a big list with many recent blockbusters and this seemed like the only reasonable solution and I tried to address the most obvious drawback with this solution, the losing of old films, with my proposed Top per decade separate list. But apparently this came off as us imposing some big restriction on popular films and this was not at all our intention. So there's no point making a controversial change in such a situation.

In any case I am glad for the discussion and I imagine it will affect the way we consider any similar changes in the future (not to this list, I don't see us changing this list unless BOM changes their cutoff, which I don't think will happen, or there is a strong and clear demand for it from users).

User avatar
jeroeno
Posts: 3226
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
Location: Valkenswaard, The Netherlands
Contact:

#136

Post by jeroeno » January 25th, 2016, 8:21 pm

PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 25 2016, 11:11:03 AM wrote:
Bobby Peru on Jan 25 2016, 07:04:58 AM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 24 2016, 12:12:10 PM wrote: We have a winner. It seems the other alternatives aren't satisfactory so we'll just stick with the $200M cutoff as it is on BOM for now. Yes this means the list will keep growing by larger and larger amounts each year.

I still don't think this is the right solution, I think it makes the list lose its representation of box office success and popularity when you have over 30 films making the list every year, but there's no point in doing this change if its going to upset so many people.
So popular opinion wins. Yay for democracy. :)
I honestly don't know what popular opinion is, as you can see from the last few responses, or by rereading the thread, there are many who supported the (or at least a) change. At the same time, there are more people who dislike the change than we would have thought. It didn't seem like the change would be this controversial, given views expressed in the past and the many comments on the list itself by people not on the forum asking for it to be capped for years. Our intention was to make the list remain meaningful and relevant while still being a big list with many recent blockbusters and this seemed like the only reasonable solution and I tried to address the most obvious drawback with this solution, the losing of old films, with my proposed Top per decade separate list. But apparently this came off as us imposing some big restriction on popular films and this was not at all our intention. So there's no point making a controversial change in such a situation.

In any case I am glad for the discussion and I imagine it will affect the way we consider any similar changes in the future (not to this list, I don't see us changing this list unless BOM changes their cutoff, which I don't think will happen, or there is a strong and clear demand for it from users).
Image

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13256
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#137

Post by brokenface » January 25th, 2016, 9:09 pm

Burkey on Jan 24 2016, 05:40:17 PM wrote:
ChrisReynolds on Jan 24 2016, 04:51:42 PM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 24 2016, 12:12:10 PM wrote:I still don't think this is the right solution, I think it makes the list lose its representation of box office success and popularity when you have over 30 films making the list every year, but there's no point in doing this change if its going to upset so many people.
Over 40 at this point. 2014 has 43 films on the list. The longer this is put off the worse the situation with films losing official status will become, and the list could potentially reach 1000 films by the end of 2021. Below is a possible projection I made.

Image

Other lists have films falling off the bottom as new films enter. I don't see why the box office list should be an exception.
Not if their is another recession, maybe that'll slow it down. I think the list acts as interesting artifact in the rise of global box office power.
I wonder if there might not also be a natural buffer in that there will be a limit in the number of blockbuster-potential films studios will put out in any given year (i.e. rarely more than 2 a week) and of them there are always a number of failures. I can't see it going up to 90-100 making $200m for a long time*.

Seems more like it's a market that is growing more unequal with maybe 20-odd mega-successful franchises taking up a bigger piece of the pie each year, so there'll be more & more making $1bn, while the inflation gain of the middle budget films is pretty gradual.

*on the counter-argument there is, of course, China and the fact films can now make $200m there alone without even getting a blip of attention outside China eg: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5061814/

User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 423
Joined: May 03, 2013
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#138

Post by Harco » January 25th, 2016, 11:50 pm

PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 25 2016, 11:11:03 AM wrote:I don't see us changing this list unless BOM changes their cutoff, which I don't think will happen
Or someone should contact BOM and ask if they have any plans of changing the cutoff themselves in the near future. tehe

mathiasa
Posts: 2391
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#139

Post by mathiasa » January 26th, 2016, 4:26 pm

brokenface on Jan 25 2016, 02:09:42 PM wrote:I wonder if there might not also be a natural buffer in that there will be a limit in the number of blockbuster-potential films studios will put out in any given year (i.e. rarely more than 2 a week) and of them there are always a number of failures. I can't see it going up to 90-100 making $200m for a long time*.

Seems more like it's a market that is growing more unequal with maybe 20-odd mega-successful franchises taking up a bigger piece of the pie each year, so there'll be more & more making $1bn, while the inflation gain of the middle budget films is pretty gradual.

*on the counter-argument there is, of course, China and the fact films can now make $200m there alone without even getting a blip of attention outside China eg: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5061814/
I think you and Burkey are misunderstanding what Reynold's graph is telling us. For this projection to hold up, the film studios don't have to put out more "blockbuster-potential films" than they do now. With soaring ticket prices (roughly doubling since the mid 90ies) as well as population increases, movies that today wouldn't earn 200m$+ will in the near future make 200m$+. So there is clearly no "natural buffer" if you statically define a blockbuster as a movie that earns more than $200m$ - since while film studios have influence over what they release, they do not decide what a dollar is worth.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30675
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#140

Post by joachimt » January 26th, 2016, 5:03 pm

The limit is eventually how many movies are screened in cinema's. There is a limit to that. But that won't be reached very soon, so that graph is a realistic (but rough) prediction.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 1289
Joined: Jun 30, 2011
Location: Germany
Contact:

#141

Post by Torgo » January 26th, 2016, 5:42 pm

I liked this thread better 2 pages ago when we had reached a consensus.
<_<

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30675
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#142

Post by joachimt » January 26th, 2016, 5:46 pm

Torgo on Jan 26 2016, 10:42:10 AM wrote:I liked this thread better 2 pages ago when we had reached a consensus.
<_<
Did we? :huh:



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

User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 414
Joined: May 06, 2014
Contact:

#143

Post by Tasselfoot » January 26th, 2016, 5:52 pm

I swear we agreed to limit it to 5 or 10 films per year, going back as far as we can find accurate data (or back to the start of the modern blockbuster). This captures both historic and modern films. Captures them equally. And grows at a rate that is maintainable.

mathiasa
Posts: 2391
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#144

Post by mathiasa » January 26th, 2016, 6:07 pm

Limiting the list to X movies per year would indeed be very sensible.

blocho
Donator
Posts: 2644
Joined: Jul 20, 2014
Contact:

#145

Post by blocho » January 26th, 2016, 7:58 pm

mathiasa on Jan 26 2016, 11:07:02 AM wrote:Limiting the list to X movies per year would indeed be very sensible.
ditto

User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3113
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

#146

Post by WalterNeff » January 26th, 2016, 8:20 pm

Leaving the list as is is also sensible

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13256
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#147

Post by brokenface » January 26th, 2016, 9:08 pm

mathiasa on Jan 26 2016, 09:26:23 AM wrote:
brokenface on Jan 25 2016, 02:09:42 PM wrote:I wonder if there might not also be a natural buffer in that there will be a limit in the number of blockbuster-potential films studios will put out in any given year (i.e. rarely more than 2 a week) and of them there are always a number of failures. I can't see it going up to 90-100 making $200m for a long time*.

Seems more like it's a market that is growing more unequal with maybe 20-odd mega-successful franchises taking up a bigger piece of the pie each year, so there'll be more & more making $1bn, while the inflation gain of the middle budget films is pretty gradual.

*on the counter-argument there is, of course, China and the fact films can now make $200m there alone without even getting a blip of attention outside China eg: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5061814/
I think you and Burkey are misunderstanding what Reynold's graph is telling us. For this projection to hold up, the film studios don't have to put out more "blockbuster-potential films" than they do now. With soaring ticket prices (roughly doubling since the mid 90ies) as well as population increases, movies that today wouldn't earn 200m$+ will in the near future make 200m$+. So there is clearly no "natural buffer" if you statically define a blockbuster as a movie that earns more than $200m$ - since while film studios have influence over what they release, they do not decide what a dollar is worth.
What I mean is that while inflation and increased cinema-going population (esp China) will mean the whole market grows, it won't benefit all films equally.

So as an example total US domestic gross of 2015 releases was $11.1bn compared to $10.3bn for 2014
http://pro.boxoffice.com/statistics/yearly

But:

Top 5 released in 2015 made 2.7bn combined
Top 5 released in 2014 made 1.5bn combined

Films making 150m in 2015 = 20
Films making 150m in 2014 = 20

Films making 100m in 2015 = 29
Films making 100m in 2014 = 33

(the 2015 numbers may grow a little as some are still making money, but not by too much at this point)

Point is that the very top few films were responsible for all the overall gains, where the mid-level ones were much of a much.
The number of films making 200m will grow over time but if the very top few get majority of the benefits of inflation/pop growth, this will be quite a slow growth.

I didn't explain it very well but my point on the 'natural buffer' is that the average punter will only see so many films per year and as ticket prices go up they are more likely to skip the middling ones and save their cash for Star Wars and the other elite franchises at the top. Studios plan their release calendar to account for this (i.e. the top franchises avoid each other) and the pure limiting factor of number of weeks in a year therefore may act as a buffer
Last edited by brokenface on January 26th, 2016, 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23810
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#148

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » January 26th, 2016, 9:11 pm

What you're saying accounts for the small fluctuations year to year, but long term it doesn't work that way. The movies making $150 million today will be the ones making $200M in 5 years.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12976
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#149

Post by Cippenham » January 27th, 2016, 12:19 am

We could leave the list as it is frozen in time but then start a new list for films from 2016 but they need to have a higher Box office value, to be decided. This way no official checks will be lost. Or just say all new ones need to be above a certain higher level.
Last edited by Cippenham on January 27th, 2016, 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7085
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#150

Post by Gershwin » January 27th, 2016, 12:32 am

Cippenham on Jan 26 2016, 05:19:36 PM wrote:We could leave the list as it is frozen in time but then start a new list for films from 2016 but they need to have a higher Box office value, to be decided. This way no official checks will be lost.
Yeah, or we could split it in two lists, one static list for pre 2000 films and one for post 2000 films with a higher cap. To be honest that still seems the best solution to me. But I'm not sure that's what the majority thinks.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12976
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#151

Post by Cippenham » January 27th, 2016, 12:34 am

Gershwin on Jan 26 2016, 05:32:44 PM wrote:
Cippenham on Jan 26 2016, 05:19:36 PM wrote:We could leave the list as it is frozen in time but then start a new list for films from 2016 but they need to have a higher Box office value, to be decided. This way no official checks will be lost.
Yeah, or we could split it in two lists, one static list for pre 2000 films and one for post 2000 films with a higher cap. To be honest that still seems the best solution to me. But I'm not sure that's what the majority thinks.
No I am now saying keep one list but all new ones from now on need a higher level so as not to lose any checks.
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23810
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#152

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » January 27th, 2016, 12:49 am

Why is losing checks the important thing? Lots of lists lose checks. I can understand, even though I disagree, people saying the list is fine as is and there's no problem with having more and more films in it every year. I don't understand agreeing the list is broken and needs a new cut-off, but wanting to do something like that just to avoid losing checks.

If it's about the films being deserving (like the suddenly popular Rocky IV everyone latched on to) then either they should be on another list already that represents what makes them deserving or we can do something like the per year/decade which accounts for box office when the 200M mark was meaningful. In either case it's a different list. Rocky IV isn't meaningful because it made over 200 Million. It's meaningful because it made over 200 Million in 1985 and the current list, or splitting the list in 2015, doesn't really say that.

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7085
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#153

Post by Gershwin » January 27th, 2016, 1:09 am

I think for me it's just a matter of regret that even the mediocre 80s and 90s films I saw when I was young (and often even didn't check on iCM because I don't remember whether I saw them or not) are losing official status because of some recent equally mediocre or even bad stuff I'm not interested in. But I have to admit that there's already the list with 200 films that's corrected for inflation, so basically that's doing what I'm wishing for (only it doesn't really work out the way I'd like it to).

That being said, I'd like the list that Tasselfoot and some others proposed, with an X number of top grossing films per year/decade.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23810
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#154

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » January 27th, 2016, 1:11 am

Gershwin on Jan 26 2016, 06:09:22 PM wrote:That being said, I'd like the list that Tasselfoot and some others proposed, with an X number of top grossing films per year/decade.
I've found a source and will make this (regardless of whether it will ever be official or not), sometime this week.

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7085
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#155

Post by Gershwin » January 27th, 2016, 1:13 am

PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 26 2016, 06:11:10 PM wrote:
Gershwin on Jan 26 2016, 06:09:22 PM wrote:That being said, I'd like the list that Tasselfoot and some others proposed, with an X number of top grossing films per year/decade.
I've found a source and will make this (regardless of whether it will ever be official or not), sometime this week.
If you could do that ... that would be great! :thumbsup:
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12976
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#156

Post by Cippenham » January 27th, 2016, 1:17 am

It was so as not to upset people who only watch these type of films.
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

User avatar
frbrown
Posts: 6089
Joined: Nov 01, 2011
Contact:

#157

Post by frbrown » January 27th, 2016, 1:54 am

PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 26 2016, 06:11:10 PM wrote:
Gershwin on Jan 26 2016, 06:09:22 PM wrote:That being said, I'd like the list that Tasselfoot and some others proposed, with an X number of top grossing films per year/decade.
I've found a source and will make this (regardless of whether it will ever be official or not), sometime this week.
What's the source?
Image

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3523
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#158

Post by tommy_leazaq » January 27th, 2016, 2:16 am

I guess we need to get inputs from non-forum members also, for a list like this. May be a blog post having a URL to a poll or something.

User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 414
Joined: May 06, 2014
Contact:

#159

Post by Tasselfoot » January 27th, 2016, 2:55 am

PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 26 2016, 06:11:10 PM wrote:
Gershwin on Jan 26 2016, 06:09:22 PM wrote:That being said, I'd like the list that Tasselfoot and some others proposed, with an X number of top grossing films per year/decade.
I've found a source and will make this (regardless of whether it will ever be official or not), sometime this week.
I've already done it... not sure this is the exact criteria you're looking for or not. But to save you some work. And my sources are all listed, in case you want to use them for other breakdowns. I'm happy to make more, similar lists as well if you need me to. This stuff interests me a lot more than country lists that I'll likely never see more than 2-3 films off of.

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/year ... asselfoot/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/top+ ... asselfoot/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/top+ ... asselfoot/

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3586
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#160

Post by Fergenaprido » January 27th, 2016, 3:20 am

One thing I just thought of; many people are pointing out that this is an ever expanding list and it will get too unwieldy in the future with so many films added each year and none falling off.

Is this not like the National Film Registry then? It's had 25 films per year since 1988, and there's no sign of them stopping, so this will also be growing continuously each year with no films falling off, but no one seems to be bothered by that.

If it's about the merit of the films, I can't really see the case that some recent blockbusters are not worthy of official status, but some terrible short films from 50-100 years ago most certainly are.

Anyway, I don't think we every reached consensus. If people really want older blockbusters to get official status, then we can do one per decade (without taking into consider inflation); those lists will probably skew slightly toward the end of each decade, but I think they'll be good enough for our purposes. We've got a top 50 from imdb on 'best', so we can do a top 50 from a box office source on 'most popular'.

The list is fine as it is, for now, I think.

Post Reply