I thank you for your careful consideration on this topic. Obviously that Empire list is worthless and the one as it is should stay.PeacefulAnarchy wrote: ↑October 28th, 2019, 6:57 amThe 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.
I'll speak to the decades lists and say if they have to be adopted maybe the adjusted list should get them. Otherwise it just makes the problem worse, every film will be a Hollywood production. Moreover if those films had value more than likely many lists would already include them, their gross in the past no longer has much relevancy especially if the movie is now lost. It certainly isn't an examination of modern trends, and would update so infrequently as to be a nuisance rather than especially helpful.