Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Polls: Favorite Movies (Results), 1945 (Results), 1929 awards (Apr 4th), South Asia (Apr 25th), Doubling the Canon (Ratings Apr 30th)
Challenges: Doubling the Canon, Nordic, 1950s
Film of the Week: Valkoinen peura, May nominations (May 1st)
World Cup S4: Round 1 schedule, 1F: Brazil vs Greece vs Japan vs Poland (Apr 5th), 1G: Germany vs Pakistan vs Ukraine vs USA (Apr 22nd)

How to deal with All-Time Worldwide Box office

Post Reply
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30951
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: How to deal with All-Time Worldwide Box office

#241

Post by joachimt » October 26th, 2019, 2:24 pm

EDIT: inserted this post into the previous one, so the graphs are together
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30951
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#242

Post by joachimt » October 26th, 2019, 2:33 pm

Looking at those graphs, I would say the current decade deserves a top 250 of the whole decade. Yearly top 10s sounds nice, but it will only contain usual suspects that are probably on other lists as well, like the IMDb-lists.

I can make temporary iCM-lists for several ideas. All the info is on the BOM-site. I'll try to make these:
1. Yearly top 10s combined into one list for practical reasons.
2. Decade top 250s. One list for each decade.
Other ideas to examine?
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24267
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#243

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » October 26th, 2019, 2:33 pm

xianjiro wrote:
October 26th, 2019, 8:48 am
Ultimately, we need to decide the breadth and scope of blockbuster that deserve to be featured, and hasn't this been the discussion all along?
Yeah, except now our hand has been forced. And yes some checks will be lost regardless, but that's the nature of any change. As you say, the question is finding something that is appropriate to cover the various perspectives of the subject.

If we do decade top X it won't be top 10. My thoughts would be either top 50, top 100 or variable Top X with a dollar amount (different each decade) as the cutoff which would land somewhere between 50 and 100 titles.
These lists come from a book and use a varying NorthAm Dollar cutoff:
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
For reference, the cutoffs in these list adjust roughly to between 150 and 200 Mil Domestic.
joachimt wrote:
October 26th, 2019, 2:33 pm
Looking at those graphs, I would say the current decade deserves a top 250 of the whole decade. Yearly top 10s sounds nice, but it will only contain usual suspects that are probably on other lists as well, like the IMDb-lists.

I can make temporary iCM-lists for several ideas. All the info is on the BOM-site. I'll try to make these:
1. Yearly top 10s combined into one list for practical reasons.
2. Decade top 250s. One list for each decade.
Other ideas to examine?
Top 250 per decade is way too big, and also practically impossible to find useful data for earlier decades.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30951
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#244

Post by joachimt » October 26th, 2019, 2:51 pm

joachimt wrote:
October 26th, 2019, 2:33 pm
Looking at those graphs, I would say the current decade deserves a top 250 of the whole decade. Yearly top 10s sounds nice, but it will only contain usual suspects that are probably on other lists as well, like the IMDb-lists.

I can make temporary iCM-lists for several ideas. All the info is on the BOM-site. I'll try to make these:
1. Yearly top 10s combined into one list for practical reasons.
2. Decade top 250s. One list for each decade.
Other ideas to examine?
To make this, I'd better wait to see if they change the movie-links on the yearly pages.
On the all time top 200 the movie links contain the IMDb tt-code. On a yearly page the urls don't contain that number. It's the yearly pages that I need to create a master list.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30951
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#245

Post by joachimt » October 26th, 2019, 2:55 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
October 26th, 2019, 2:33 pm
joachimt wrote:
October 26th, 2019, 2:33 pm
Looking at those graphs, I would say the current decade deserves a top 250 of the whole decade. Yearly top 10s sounds nice, but it will only contain usual suspects that are probably on other lists as well, like the IMDb-lists.

I can make temporary iCM-lists for several ideas. All the info is on the BOM-site. I'll try to make these:
1. Yearly top 10s combined into one list for practical reasons.
2. Decade top 250s. One list for each decade.
Other ideas to examine?
Top 250 per decade is way too big, and also practically impossible to find useful data for earlier decades.
Maybe not for every decade, but going back to a decade top 100 for the current decade would be a huge step back. There are currently 384 movies from this decade on the WW BO list. I don't think all these movies deserve to be an official check, but a top 100 wouldn't give a meaningful list of "what's popular in cinemas these days". A top 100 would only contain the biggest blockbusters, because it would be less than one movie a month.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24267
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#246

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » October 26th, 2019, 3:12 pm

We shouldn't be using the previous list as a guideline, since the $200M cutoff for that list was decided at least 26 years ago (Jurassic Park is what made people start looking at international totals) when there were 9 movies making the cutoff. The following years it was 12,13,12,17,18,20.

Also, I think we need to have a consistent (not necessarily Top X) criteria for all decades, and Top 250 presents a lot of challenges for historical data.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7296
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#247

Post by xianjiro » October 26th, 2019, 9:32 pm

Thanks doing the work on this guys. :)

One thing in defense of the 250 per decade lists at this stage is it provides a platform for the discussion. That number can easily be trimmed. One thought comes to mind: what if blockbuster is defined as a film which grosses Y times some number X which reflects something like the mean or median box office take during the decade? But even then, the dollar was worth something quite different in 1930 than it was in 1939 and ticket prices probably reflected that as people had more money to spend at the end of decade (but I know you know what I'm getting at). In other words, can we have a concept that isn't tied to a single dollar figure (200,000,000 or whatever) even when adjusted for inflation?

I know it's been mentioned in the past, but hasn't resurfaced in this discussion. Any discussion of blockbusters is largely a discussion of how much money Hollywood movies took in. Do we have access to figures for European ticket sales - though granted, the European market was a bit warped during the 30s and 40s, etc. Clearly there were Bollywood blockbusters in India in the 60s and 70s and those films were marketed overseas to an extent - largely in Asia. But I'm guessing they weren't grossing anywhere near Hollywood numbers. My gut is, worldwide only truly enters the picture in 90s or 00s, so those lists might need to reflect that while earlier lists state a more limited geographic region for their basis? Not really sure, but I know someone else has a much better grasp on the details than I do at this point.

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

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24267
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#248

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » October 26th, 2019, 10:56 pm

There are figures for some individual markets, but no, worldwide numbers have holes in the 90s, are sparse in the 80s and only available for a handful of movies before then. A historical box office list would, unfortunately, be a North America-centric affair, at least before this century.

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

#249

Post by monclivie » October 26th, 2019, 11:09 pm

What's wrong with The Numbers list as a source of top 500? It's reliable and updated daily.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24267
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#250

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » October 26th, 2019, 11:49 pm

monclivie wrote:
October 26th, 2019, 11:09 pm
What's wrong with The Numbers list as a source of top 500? It's reliable and updated daily.
It's an option but is it the right one? Before we followed a source, no matter how broken the cutoff of 200M+ was becoming. Now we have a bunch of choices and no single source to follow (besides the mojo top 200) so the question is, what's a meaningful useful list that adds something to the site. What's the real advantage of adding 201-500? To mimic the current list? That works for now but all it will do is keep adding more and more recent films and everything else gets pushed away. It just becomes a big unbalanced everchanging list that provides little incentive to completion. A top 200 is a size people can actually work towards and the new films that get on the list are big releases, not just "big" releases. Yearly/decade top lists would actually keep more of the current list official in the long run and would provide discrete lists for people with different interests to work on and would scale forward towards the future as they'd become stable lists at the end of the decade.

That's not a no, btw, it is an option to consider, but at the moment I'm not convinced it's the best option, though it's certainly the easiest (short term at least).

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6832
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#251

Post by albajos » October 27th, 2019, 10:25 am

At the current list there are 25 2019 releases in the full 200M list (3,2%)
9 in the 200 (4,5%)
19 in the 500 (3,6%)

Looking on income is pointless anyway. The last year's releases will be enter the list in big numbers that way)

The only way to check popularity is tickets sold, but we simpy don't have stats for that, particualrly not internationally.

Personally I just want the list gone, as that is not an option, making them as small as possible just to show the biggest earners is a compromise. Nobody cares if a movie was the 534th most successful ever. Particulary not the studios, so why should we.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3567
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#252

Post by Onderhond » October 27th, 2019, 10:37 am

Can we maybe make a list based on bugdet rather than income? So we'll get the actual blockbusters rather than the popular films? Or will that just be the Disney catalogue?
albajos wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 10:25 am
Nobody cares if a movie was the 534th most successful ever. Particulary not the studios, so why should we.
I don't care what the 534th favorite film is of a random selection of film critics, even so the full TSPDT list is on here too.
The current BO list is one of the few lists on ICM I actively use, so I guess I care.

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 140
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#253

Post by Darth Nevets » October 27th, 2019, 2:52 pm

albajos wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 10:25 am
At the current list there are 25 2019 releases in the full 200M list (3,2%)
9 in the 200 (4,5%)
19 in the 500 (3,6%)

Looking on income is pointless anyway. The last year's releases will be enter the list in big numbers that way)

The only way to check popularity is tickets sold, but we simpy don't have stats for that, particualrly not internationally.

Personally I just want the list gone, as that is not an option, making them as small as possible just to show the biggest earners is a compromise. Nobody cares if a movie was the 534th most successful ever. Particulary not the studios, so why should we.
The forum currently has this thread next to a thread discussing the death of ICM, and frankly this thought process is the reason it's dying. At 534 on the Box Office List we have a movie at 33k checks, this is not an insignificant movie to people trying to CHECK movies or to the box office or studio or anyone but the myopia of people here. At the same time a Chilean list with a median check in the 60s is being adopted while the ultras rail against movies seen.

The solution should be the opposite, as 200 million was a problem in that it wasn't low enough. We should make this the biggest list on ICM, 2000 movies would enable people to find the movies they've actually seen, encouraging people who find the site to stick around. Obviously that won't happen, but with a clean near 1k movies that should be the cutoff adopted going forward. It wouldn't rock the boat in rankings, and when a rando comes across it it will have a number they can easily wrap their heads around.

Having 200 is a complete joke, the redesign of BOM is one the least successful relaunches in history and this forum wants to follow its terrible decisions before they switch them back. This would mean the random choices (Rosenbaum acknowledges they aren't the best) of maybe the third best critic in America's third biggest city would count six times as much as all the people on earth. The last thing we would want is people checking movies that people have seen on this website.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30951
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#254

Post by joachimt » October 27th, 2019, 3:35 pm

Darth Nevets wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 2:52 pm
The forum currently has this thread next to a thread discussing the death of ICM, and frankly this thought process is the reason it's dying. At 534 on the Box Office List we have a movie at 33k checks, this is not an insignificant movie to people trying to CHECK movies or to the box office or studio or anyone but the myopia of people here.

......

Having 200 is a complete joke, the redesign of BOM is one the least successful relaunches in history and this forum wants to follow its terrible decisions before they switch them back. This would mean the random choices (Rosenbaum acknowledges they aren't the best) of maybe the third best critic in America's third biggest city would count six times as much as all the people on earth. The last thing we would want is people checking movies that people have seen on this website.
Your making way too big of a generalization here. The people of the forum in general are not against popular movies on official lists. Lots of people here have expressed they are pleased with the BO-list for highlighting movies that are currently hits.

It's not a choice to this forum to follow the decision of BOM. That choice is to the mods and Marijn. But actually, if you've read the conversation, you would know that for the current lists there is no choice. On BOM there is no longer list available to update the current lists on iCM, so we're stuck with those. However, when we (the mods) noticed this change on BOM, one of the first things we said was that we should find an alternative. But somehow you seem to read that we are glad with the shorter list, because we don't want movies with 33k checks to be official checks. That's nonsense.

Instead of complaining about the decision, do you have a suggestion? What would you do at this moment, if you were a mod?
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 140
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#255

Post by Darth Nevets » October 27th, 2019, 6:08 pm

joachimt wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 3:35 pm
Darth Nevets wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 2:52 pm
The forum currently has this thread next to a thread discussing the death of ICM, and frankly this thought process is the reason it's dying. At 534 on the Box Office List we have a movie at 33k checks, this is not an insignificant movie to people trying to CHECK movies or to the box office or studio or anyone but the myopia of people here.

......

Having 200 is a complete joke, the redesign of BOM is one the least successful relaunches in history and this forum wants to follow its terrible decisions before they switch them back. This would mean the random choices (Rosenbaum acknowledges they aren't the best) of maybe the third best critic in America's third biggest city would count six times as much as all the people on earth. The last thing we would want is people checking movies that people have seen on this website.
Your making way too big of a generalization here. The people of the forum in general are not against popular movies on official lists. Lots of people here have expressed they are pleased with the BO-list for highlighting movies that are currently hits.

It's not a choice to this forum to follow the decision of BOM. That choice is to the mods and Marijn. But actually, if you've read the conversation, you would know that for the current lists there is no choice. On BOM there is no longer list available to update the current lists on iCM, so we're stuck with those. However, when we (the mods) noticed this change on BOM, one of the first things we said was that we should find an alternative. But somehow you seem to read that we are glad with the shorter list, because we don't want movies with 33k checks to be official checks. That's nonsense.

Instead of complaining about the decision, do you have a suggestion? What would you do at this moment, if you were a mod?
I am not making a generalization, I check this forum most days and very rarely feel the need to log in. As bluntly as possible many spend a large amount of time actively fighting anything of the popular sort from ever becoming official (lest they fall in ranking) and detest their mere existence most of the time. Its a joke to suggest otherwise, intellectual dishonesty that can't be believed. It's a badge of honor to say the ATBO list is your dead last list in ranking, and many are now exulting that BOM has taken a dose of crazypills again before they get their shit together again. The numbers obviously is a perfect alternative.

In fact you seem to be conceptually aware that what being said is not true, as your quotation of my post deliberately omits the very paragraph in which I make the suggestions you insist I should have made instead. Also that cherrypicking of a movie with 33k checks wasn't nonsense, a poster literally claimed that being 534 all time was a worthless and meaningless distinction. I merely pointed the myopia of the post using simple numbers, that a good deal of people checked the movie. This also wasn't about gamesmanship as the movie is on seven lists and is in no danger of losing status.

Try to think as a site operator. This site says to people who are aware of the minutiae several stupefying things. One that JR's list can have every movie he feels (even those that are basically unfindable or even tv series) become official. Also basically entire filmographies of art short makers masturbating get the same treatment for being screened at a film archive in the 70s. It then says The BFG can't be official because it grossed a few dollars less than Rocky 2.

Now think of this from the perspective of a complete noob, someone who finds the site tomorrow and isn't aware of any of this bullshit and just wants to keep track of movies they've seen. You want them to go to the unchecked tab and try to sort everything? For fucks sake as you move pages it doesn't account for the movies you checked on that page! The pages, even with the update, only lists 50 at a time. Or do you want them to go to an easily available list with big hits that includes a large number of movies that they have most likely seen?

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30951
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#256

Post by joachimt » October 27th, 2019, 6:25 pm

The paragraph in which you say you offer a solution, doesn't contain a solution. You merely suggest making the list bigger. But how? The source made the list smaller. The info isn't there anymore in a way we could practically use it. Maybe it will become usable, but we're not sure at the moment.

Don't get me wrong, I want to have more lists of popular stuff. We just need to figure out what source we want to use, what conditions, etc...... If you have a constructive idea about this, please share, but don't complain about the userbase of this forum in the way you do, because that's irrelevant here.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11048
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#257

Post by mjf314 » October 27th, 2019, 6:30 pm

joachimt wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:25 pm
The paragraph in which you say you offer a solution, doesn't contain a solution. You merely suggest making the list bigger. But how? The source made the list smaller. The info isn't there anymore in a way we could practically use it. Maybe it will become usable, but we're not sure at the moment.
Darth Nevets wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:08 pm
The numbers obviously is a perfect alternative.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30951
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#258

Post by joachimt » October 27th, 2019, 6:33 pm

mjf314 wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:30 pm
joachimt wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:25 pm
The paragraph in which you say you offer a solution, doesn't contain a solution. You merely suggest making the list bigger. But how? The source made the list smaller. The info isn't there anymore in a way we could practically use it. Maybe it will become usable, but we're not sure at the moment.
Darth Nevets wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:08 pm
The numbers obviously is a perfect alternative.
That's not from the post he was referring to.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 140
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#259

Post by Darth Nevets » October 27th, 2019, 6:45 pm

joachimt wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:33 pm
mjf314 wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:30 pm
joachimt wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:25 pm
The paragraph in which you say you offer a solution, doesn't contain a solution. You merely suggest making the list bigger. But how? The source made the list smaller. The info isn't there anymore in a way we could practically use it. Maybe it will become usable, but we're not sure at the moment.
Darth Nevets wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:08 pm
The numbers obviously is a perfect alternative.
That's not from the post he was referring to.
"The solution should be the opposite, as 200 million was a problem in that it wasn't low enough. We should make this the biggest list on ICM, 2000 movies would enable people to find the movies they've actually seen, encouraging people who find the site to stick around. Obviously that won't happen, but with a clean near 1k movies that should be the cutoff adopted going forward. It wouldn't rock the boat in rankings, and when a rando comes across it it will have a number they can easily wrap their heads around."

This was literally in the post, in your quotation it was edited out as I noted. Its obstinate to not know there were other Box Office Lists mentioned in the previous page that have thousands of films. Why should the ATBO list be subject of BOM's current failed whim? It doesn't take a lot to find the reasons, but it does to obfuscate them.

User avatar
jeroeno
Posts: 3284
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
Location: Valkenswaard, The Netherlands
Contact:

#260

Post by jeroeno » October 27th, 2019, 6:58 pm

https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office- ... e/all-time

As of now there are 757 movies that grossed over 100 million dollar at the domestic box office. I'd consider that a great start to a new box office list. Very simple rule: if a movie grosses 100 million dollar domestic, it gets added to the (bottom of the) list. Keep it chronological, this way it's very easy to keep the list up to date.

And if we need more space for popular movies in official toplists just increase the ICM Most Checked Top 250 to a Top 1000.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7296
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#261

Post by xianjiro » October 27th, 2019, 7:06 pm

1000 Zombies say 1000 Noirs need 1000 Blockbusters?

I'm in.

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

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24267
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#262

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » October 27th, 2019, 7:29 pm

Darth Nevets wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:45 pm
joachimt wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:33 pm
mjf314 wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:30 pm


That's not from the post he was referring to.
"The solution should be the opposite, as 200 million was a problem in that it wasn't low enough. We should make this the biggest list on ICM, 2000 movies would enable people to find the movies they've actually seen, encouraging people who find the site to stick around. Obviously that won't happen, but with a clean near 1k movies that should be the cutoff adopted going forward. It wouldn't rock the boat in rankings, and when a rando comes across it it will have a number they can easily wrap their heads around."

This was literally in the post, in your quotation it was edited out as I noted. Its obstinate to not know there were other Box Office Lists mentioned in the previous page that have thousands of films. Why should the ATBO list be subject of BOM's current failed whim? It doesn't take a lot to find the reasons, but it does to obfuscate them.
If the goal is to have a list of movies people have seen then a most checked list is much more functional than a box office list. People watch movies outside the cinema, it would include the cult pop movies with bad box office, plus the movies you always see on TV and exclude weirdo Chinese movies pushed by their government with inflated box office totals that no one in the Western world really watches.

I don't see "a place to find movies you've already seen so you can check them" as the goal of any official list. You're probably right that such a place is lacking on ICM; it relies largely on either starting from scratch or importing from imdb. It's something to consider but a box office list isn't the place to address it.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3567
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#263

Post by Onderhond » October 27th, 2019, 7:32 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 7:29 pm
and exclude weirdo Chinese movies pushed by their government with inflated box office totals that no one in the Western world really watches.
You're usually a voice of reason but :facepalm:

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24267
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#264

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » October 27th, 2019, 7:35 pm

Onderhond wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 7:32 pm
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 7:29 pm
and exclude weirdo Chinese movies pushed by their government with inflated box office totals that no one in the Western world really watches.
You're usually a voice of reason but :facepalm:
Sarcasm. They make the box office list a little more interesting and while they're not as good as the best Hollywood blockbusters they're better than the worst. I do wish they had better releases here so people could actually watch them less than a year after they appear on a list, though.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3567
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#265

Post by Onderhond » October 27th, 2019, 7:38 pm

Oh! Guess my sarcasm detector doesn't work on your writing :P

Well, Netflix does a pretty decent job of picking up the biggest ones, but it sure would be nice to see some in theaters again. Don't think the West is quite ready for that though. Didn't really work in the early 2000s either (remembering some rather empty theaters when watching Kung Fu Hustle and Shaolin Soccer).

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30951
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#266

Post by joachimt » October 27th, 2019, 7:42 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 7:29 pm
Darth Nevets wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:45 pm
joachimt wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:33 pm

That's not from the post he was referring to.
"The solution should be the opposite, as 200 million was a problem in that it wasn't low enough. We should make this the biggest list on ICM, 2000 movies would enable people to find the movies they've actually seen, encouraging people who find the site to stick around. Obviously that won't happen, but with a clean near 1k movies that should be the cutoff adopted going forward. It wouldn't rock the boat in rankings, and when a rando comes across it it will have a number they can easily wrap their heads around."

This was literally in the post, in your quotation it was edited out as I noted. Its obstinate to not know there were other Box Office Lists mentioned in the previous page that have thousands of films. Why should the ATBO list be subject of BOM's current failed whim? It doesn't take a lot to find the reasons, but it does to obfuscate them.
If the goal is to have a list of movies people have seen then a most checked list is much more functional than a box office list. People watch movies outside the cinema, it would include the cult pop movies with bad box office, plus the movies you always see on TV and exclude weirdo Chinese movies pushed by their government with inflated box office totals that no one in the Western world really watches.
Don't forget movies released directly to Netflix or similar platforms. Those movies have hardly any chance of getting into official lists at the moment except when the rating is high enough to get into an IMDb list, but if we would expand Most Checked or Most Favorited, this will probably be a place for those movies as well.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7296
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#267

Post by xianjiro » October 27th, 2019, 7:44 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 7:29 pm

If the goal is to have a list of movies people have seen then a most checked list is much more functional than a box office list.
1000 Zombies and 1000 Smoking Femme Fatales say "We Want 1000 iCM Most Checked" (movies)

:banana: :banana: :banana:

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

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30951
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#268

Post by joachimt » October 27th, 2019, 7:55 pm

xianjiro wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 7:44 pm
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 7:29 pm

If the goal is to have a list of movies people have seen then a most checked list is much more functional than a box office list.
1000 Zombies and 1000 Smoking Femme Fatales say "We Want 1000 iCM Most Checked" (movies)

:banana: :banana: :banana:
I'm not against that idea. The 1000th most checked movie on iCM has 15256 checks, so that's clearly something people seek out. The lowest currently unofficial titles on that top 1000 are:
996. 21 (2008) - 15339 checks
995. Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (2004) - 15378 checks
991. Machete (2010) - 15474 checks

The most checked unofficial title is The Butterfly Effect with 42845 checks.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
ChrisReynolds
Donator
Posts: 2523
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

#269

Post by ChrisReynolds » October 27th, 2019, 8:36 pm

I came on this thread expecting to find the usual arguments, but something significant has happened on the Box Office Mojo side. I had always expected they would go to a capped list eventually, but didn't realise it would be such a drastic cut.

My opinions:
1. We should follow the source and cut the list to 200 if this sticks (and it seems like it will).
2. Has anybody mentioned that the same thing has happened to the All-Time Adjusted Box Office list? This was expanded from 200 to 300 a year or two ago, so changing this one back shouldn't be as controversial.
3. The purpose of iCheckMovies is to provide lists highlighting films of quality, interest and significance. As this is box office, quality isn't relevant, but significance is, and the reason this thread is so long is because films were being added to the list that were in no way significant in terms of the lists existence. Recent additions included multiple flops, and disposable big-release-of-the-week films which grossed >$200M but were in no way considered exceptional moneymakers and have been quickly forgotten.
4. In terms of interest, I am interested in seeing some high-grossing blockbusters, but this list was not a useful guide any more.
5. It should be high priority to adopt replacement lists. By design, blockbusters are the film format casual viewers are most interested in, so I wouldn't mind having a list (or lists) that have a thousand films on them.

Nathan Treadway
Donator
Posts: 4120
Joined: Jun 26, 2015
Location: Springfield, MO, USA
Contact:

#270

Post by Nathan Treadway » October 27th, 2019, 11:37 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
October 26th, 2019, 2:33 pm
xianjiro wrote:
October 26th, 2019, 8:48 am
Ultimately, we need to decide the breadth and scope of blockbuster that deserve to be featured, and hasn't this been the discussion all along?
Yeah, except now our hand has been forced. And yes some checks will be lost regardless, but that's the nature of any change. As you say, the question is finding something that is appropriate to cover the various perspectives of the subject.

If we do decade top X it won't be top 10. My thoughts would be either top 50, top 100 or variable Top X with a dollar amount (different each decade) as the cutoff which would land somewhere between 50 and 100 titles.
These lists come from a book and use a varying NorthAm Dollar cutoff:
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
For reference, the cutoffs in these list adjust roughly to between 150 and 200 Mil Domestic.
Those lists would actually be rather interesting, and would compliment the "updated" (assuming that's going to happen, which seems like a foregone conclusion at this point) quite nicely.

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 140
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#271

Post by Darth Nevets » October 28th, 2019, 4:12 am

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 7:29 pm
Darth Nevets wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:45 pm
joachimt wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:33 pm

That's not from the post he was referring to.
"The solution should be the opposite, as 200 million was a problem in that it wasn't low enough. We should make this the biggest list on ICM, 2000 movies would enable people to find the movies they've actually seen, encouraging people who find the site to stick around. Obviously that won't happen, but with a clean near 1k movies that should be the cutoff adopted going forward. It wouldn't rock the boat in rankings, and when a rando comes across it it will have a number they can easily wrap their heads around."

This was literally in the post, in your quotation it was edited out as I noted. Its obstinate to not know there were other Box Office Lists mentioned in the previous page that have thousands of films. Why should the ATBO list be subject of BOM's current failed whim? It doesn't take a lot to find the reasons, but it does to obfuscate them.
If the goal is to have a list of movies people have seen then a most checked list is much more functional than a box office list. People watch movies outside the cinema, it would include the cult pop movies with bad box office, plus the movies you always see on TV and exclude weirdo Chinese movies pushed by their government with inflated box office totals that no one in the Western world really watches.

I don't see "a place to find movies you've already seen so you can check them" as the goal of any official list. You're probably right that such a place is lacking on ICM; it relies largely on either starting from scratch or importing from imdb. It's something to consider but a box office list isn't the place to address it.
A most checked list is inherently flawed for that purpose, as it would create a backlog of utterly cemented films. Now I have had a Plat on the list since Feb 21016 and I never see any movement, it adds nothing to this criteria and expanding it won't help. Over time this problem would increase ad infinitum, with newer releases taking even longer or none being added (since 2012). There are better ways to honor cult faves and films that find an audience over time, box office examines the movies that are being seen and useful in seeing what is going to be made in the future and the impact of those titles.

As hits it really is the best way way to find movies you have actually seen. Now I agree to an extent that this doesn't automatically make every film a classic, but considering the standards employed by the website in general in officializing movies it is comical to say that any of these films with tens of millions of theatrical viewers aren't wildly more worthy than the standards employed elsewhere.

As to the Chinese movies they made their bank, many of these movies are not my favorite but their importance and influence is liable to grow over time. Many Bollywood and Anime films also have a shot at the list because of the less predictable tastes of their moviegoing public.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3677
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#272

Post by Fergenaprido » October 28th, 2019, 4:30 am

It doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet in this thread, but the Domestic is no longer inflation-adjusted, so "going back" from 300 to 200 wouldn't make sense. I would suggest freezing that list as it currently is (or as it first was, like we did with the FOK list when it stopped being a relevant source) until a better alternative is available.

Update: Actually, I found the adjusted list by searching for Gone with the Wind (which is no longer on the All-Time Domestic list linked above): https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top ... ss_to=2019 - but you would need to adjust the source each year to be adjusted to the current year's dollar value.

I don't like the new look of BOM, too much like imdbpro so it's rather indistinguishable now, and ugly. And the fact that you cannot sort columns in the tables anymore is shite.

Sidenote - I'm 1 film away from regaining silver on the all-time domestic list. Guess I should do that soon.

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 140
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#273

Post by Darth Nevets » October 28th, 2019, 4:37 am

joachimt wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 7:42 pm
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 7:29 pm
Darth Nevets wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:45 pm

"The solution should be the opposite, as 200 million was a problem in that it wasn't low enough. We should make this the biggest list on ICM, 2000 movies would enable people to find the movies they've actually seen, encouraging people who find the site to stick around. Obviously that won't happen, but with a clean near 1k movies that should be the cutoff adopted going forward. It wouldn't rock the boat in rankings, and when a rando comes across it it will have a number they can easily wrap their heads around."

This was literally in the post, in your quotation it was edited out as I noted. Its obstinate to not know there were other Box Office Lists mentioned in the previous page that have thousands of films. Why should the ATBO list be subject of BOM's current failed whim? It doesn't take a lot to find the reasons, but it does to obfuscate them.
If the goal is to have a list of movies people have seen then a most checked list is much more functional than a box office list. People watch movies outside the cinema, it would include the cult pop movies with bad box office, plus the movies you always see on TV and exclude weirdo Chinese movies pushed by their government with inflated box office totals that no one in the Western world really watches.
Don't forget movies released directly to Netflix or similar platforms. Those movies have hardly any chance of getting into official lists at the moment except when the rating is high enough to get into an IMDb list, but if we would expand Most Checked or Most Favorited, this will probably be a place for those movies as well.
I apologize for this endless assault of posts but more just keep coming. New content as a subscription driver is a myth disproven dozens of times. A Netflix original can compete for awards and best lists like any other movie, nothing is stopping a theatrical run. Basically none of their movies would hit 200 million anyway, the most watched originals on the platform are Bright, Bird Box, and Adam Sandler movies. Poor quality releases from washed up names that people happen to watch because of the breadth of content available on the platform in general leaves the viewer with no cost other than time sunk.

I already railed against most checked, so now its favorited time. By definition most people who favorite are ultras, who happen to actively seek out obscure and unavailable works. Virtually any big movie is now screwed because the people seeking out Yoyo would sandblast the dozens who will check, say, The Irishman. Roma is on ten lists and none of them are user or box office or imdb related.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24267
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#274

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » October 28th, 2019, 5:47 am

Fergenaprido wrote:
October 28th, 2019, 4:30 am
Update: Actually, I found the adjusted list by searching for Gone with the Wind (which is no longer on the All-Time Domestic list linked above): https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top ... ss_to=2019 - but you would need to adjust the source each year to be adjusted to the current year's dollar value.
The list is the same regardless of the year you adjust it to.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24267
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#275

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » October 28th, 2019, 6:02 am

Darth Nevets wrote:
October 28th, 2019, 4:12 am
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 7:29 pm
Darth Nevets wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 6:45 pm
"The solution should be the opposite, as 200 million was a problem in that it wasn't low enough. We should make this the biggest list on ICM, 2000 movies would enable people to find the movies they've actually seen, encouraging people who find the site to stick around. Obviously that won't happen, but with a clean near 1k movies that should be the cutoff adopted going forward. It wouldn't rock the boat in rankings, and when a rando comes across it it will have a number they can easily wrap their heads around."

This was literally in the post, in your quotation it was edited out as I noted. Its obstinate to not know there were other Box Office Lists mentioned in the previous page that have thousands of films. Why should the ATBO list be subject of BOM's current failed whim? It doesn't take a lot to find the reasons, but it does to obfuscate them.
If the goal is to have a list of movies people have seen then a most checked list is much more functional than a box office list. People watch movies outside the cinema, it would include the cult pop movies with bad box office, plus the movies you always see on TV and exclude weirdo Chinese movies pushed by their government with inflated box office totals that no one in the Western world really watches.

I don't see "a place to find movies you've already seen so you can check them" as the goal of any official list. You're probably right that such a place is lacking on ICM; it relies largely on either starting from scratch or importing from imdb. It's something to consider but a box office list isn't the place to address it.
A most checked list is inherently flawed for that purpose, as it would create a backlog of utterly cemented films. Now I have had a Plat on the list since Feb 21016 and I never see any movement, it adds nothing to this criteria and expanding it won't help. Over time this problem would increase ad infinitum, with newer releases taking even longer or none being added (since 2012). There are better ways to honor cult faves and films that find an audience over time, box office examines the movies that are being seen and useful in seeing what is going to be made in the future and the impact of those titles.

As hits it really is the best way way to find movies you have actually seen. Now I agree to an extent that this doesn't automatically make every film a classic, but considering the standards employed by the website in general in officializing movies it is comical to say that any of these films with tens of millions of theatrical viewers aren't wildly more worthy than the standards employed elsewhere.

As to the Chinese movies they made their bank, many of these movies are not my favorite but their importance and influence is liable to grow over time. Many Bollywood and Anime films also have a shot at the list because of the less predictable tastes of their moviegoing public.
My response was not about the value of the Box office list, which I do value. It was about your express reason for valuing it as a source being a place for people to check what they've seen. That, to me, is not a reason to make a list official. The box office list is official because it reflects the popularity of film as medium of entertainment that reaches millions of people. Your argument that 10 million people have watched them hits closer to the mark.
Darth Nevets wrote:
October 28th, 2019, 4:37 am
I already railed against most checked, so now its favorited time. By definition most people who favorite are ultras, who happen to actively seek out obscure and unavailable works. Virtually any big movie is now screwed because the people seeking out Yoyo would sandblast the dozens who will check, say, The Irishman. Roma is on ten lists and none of them are user or box office or imdb related.
He meant raw most favourited as a new list, not an expansion of the current most favourite list. This list: https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/?so ... rited&desc

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 140
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#276

Post by Darth Nevets » October 28th, 2019, 6:23 am

Finally the big rant, and most won't like this, there is an overwhelming European bias on this forum. They simply don't like this list because they can't make it, a constant reminder of their massive inadequacy. It's underlined in most of these posts, the feeling that they have been reduced as a people to a frightening extent and this is the only way to fight Hollywood and the Chinese. Frankly the top non-US movie in Europe being the Johnny English movie (in 2018) speaks to the obvious failures. All top 20 movies in Europe were major Hollywood productions (only two with a hint of UK financing)that no European film can reasonably compete.

The arguments are absurd and comical, they utterly contradict upon reading. It is said it is too easy to get this amount of gross but none of their movies can clear the hurdle. They say follow the source but if the Empire 500 example is used that would be a culling, so damn the source. Even more specious when box office as a concept is not a cultivated crop but a statement of fact, they get their info from comscore. The title of the list never references BOM and many lists have no real sourcing to link to at all. For someone to say they are fine with blockbusters while slicing them down is sidesplitting. Everywhere online the changes to BOM are a disaster that the site is seeking to repair, but here they are lauded and hoped to stick.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24267
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#277

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » October 28th, 2019, 6:57 am

The new Boxofficemojo layout is a joke waste of space that requires more clicks than necessary for everything and brings nothing new to the table.

Yes the data is "objective" (it actually isn't because global gross is a mess of exchange rates and inconsistent reporting, but for the purposes of this discussion it is, yeah)[Edit: Also money is not admissions and inherently biased towards recent films (admissions is too, btw) so objectivity here is in the eye of the beholder] but the cutoff is not. We tied ourselves to mojo and it's cutoff, when we tried to change the cutoff everyone said "follow the source, they haven't changed the cutoff why should you," so we didn't. Now the source has changed the cutoff. The-numbers has no cutoff. We can use it as the source, but then we have to decide the cutoff. That is this discussion. The alternative to changing the cutoff is leaving the cutoff as BOM has it and adding decade lists of some undetermined length. We have not made any decisions, we are reading and discussing. Yes there are people on this forum who don't care about this list and people who would like it gone. They aren't currently participating in this discussion so it's weird to keep talking about what they want when we're not considering what they want. We're trying to find something that makes sense for those who work on the box office list, something that meaningfully represents the box office, something that makes sense for the site's lists, something that is reasonable to update, something that has some reasonable and justifiable criteria.

I understand your perspective on the list fine. I agree with it in general, I don't agree with some of the specifics or some of your conclusions, but I read them and think about them.

The empire 500 is still up: https://www.empireonline.com/movies/fea ... st-movies/ Whether it's meant to be replaced by the more recent top 100 https://www.empireonline.com/movies/fea ... -movies-2/ is not so clear, the former included votes from 150 Hollywood people and 50 Critics (I assume to massage the results and expand the list) while the latter appears to be a pure reader poll.
That's not to say there aren't inconsistencies with how the lists are curated, how they're chosen, their sizes, etc. I've said this before, list selection and curation is a compromise and attempt to give users interesting and popular lists to work with. Not everyone agrees with every decision nor do we as mods, much less all the users, have the same vision of what the site should be. Feel free to criticize these inconsistencies or selections if you wish, but be careful trying to draw conclusions about intent from them.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7296
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#278

Post by xianjiro » October 28th, 2019, 7:05 am

Fergenaprido wrote:
October 28th, 2019, 4:30 am
I would suggest freezing that list as it currently is (or as it first was, like we did with the FOK list when it stopped being a relevant source) until a better alternative is available.
I was thinking about how this might also be a workable interim solution. I know making lists official/unofficial creates db work on the backend, but if we want to stay current, also for the interim, we could just list the BOM list as BOM Top 200.

This brings me to one other topic that we can discuss here or elsewhere: does anyone look at page stats to see how often a given list is accessed? I know that's available through Google Analytics if it's been enabled for the site.
Last edited by xianjiro on October 28th, 2019, 7:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24267
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#279

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » October 28th, 2019, 7:13 am

The list is currently frozen. Will it stay that way until Frozen II is released? I don't know. We'd like to have a plan of action, if not the actual lists adopted then at least an idea of what we plan to do before changing it. We'd also like to see if BOM decides to change anything in response to the feedback they've been getting (I doubt they will).

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3677
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#280

Post by Fergenaprido » October 28th, 2019, 7:19 am

I don't think I knew about The Numbers before. It looks like a decent site, and even has an inflation-adjusted list... but it doesn't have anything pre-1977 (or pre-1980 on a few lists) anywhere on the site, which to me is a problem. While the modern (summer) blockbuster may have begun with Star Wars, it's strange to me to have a box office list that doesn't include Jaws or Gone with the Wind. I think at this point, if BOM is going to stick to their new changes, a segmented approach is best: break it down by decades or groups of decades, maybe pre-1977 domestic (since international BO data seems to be scarce), 1977-[insert year] domestic, and [insert year]-present global (and make [insert year] the year when it seems that studios started caring about the global box office, making their films more widely available, and reporting the numbers. I assume that would be some time in the mid-90s or later? Perhaps 1997 would be a good cut off since that's when Titanic came out and could be seen as the start of the modern global box office).

The idea someone had of all films that hit $100K domestically, ordered by date they crossed the threshold is also good, IMO.

Post Reply