Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
NOTE: Board emails should be working again. Information on forum upgrade and style issues.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 22 released November 17th * EXCLUSIVE * We Are Mentioned in a Book!!! Interview with Mary Guillermin on Rapture, JG & More)
Polls: Directors (Waiting for results), 1929 (Results), Directorial Debut Features (Mar 12th), DtC - Nominations (Mar 20th)
Challenges: Experimental/Avant Garde, Benelux, Run the Director
Film of the Week: Daisan no kagemusha, March nominations (Feb 26th)

Puzzled by ICM

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13430
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#161

Post by Cippenham »

You may as well be a Zombie as continue this argument.. :folded:
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#162

Post by monty »

Cippenham on May 20 2016, 01:33:17 PM wrote:You may as well be a Zombie as continue this argument.. :folded:
Why? Because you're part of the possee and are afraid to answer without your jefa's permission?
Like I said, I'd really like to see mighty herself respond - after all, it is a legitimate concern this debate has raised.
Last edited by monty on May 20th, 2016, 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lammetje
Donator
Posts: 4084
Joined: October 4th, 2013, 6:00 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

#163

Post by Lammetje »

Talking about a thread spiraling out of control... Holy shit! :blink:
iCM | IMDb | Last.fm | Listal

Image
OldAle1 wrote:I think four Aamir Khan films is enough for me. Unless I'm down to one film left on the IMDb Top 250 at some point and he's in that last film, at which point I'll watch it and then shoot myself having become the official-check-whoring person I hate.
More memorable quotes
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:Active topics is the devil. Please use the forums and subforums as intended and peruse all the topics nicely sorted by topic, not just the currently popular ones displayed in a jumbled mess.
maxwelldeux wrote:If you asked me to kill my wife and pets OR watch Minions, I'd check the runtime and inquire about sobriety requirements before providing an answer.
Torgo wrote:Lammetje is some kind of hybrid Anna-Kendrick-lamb-entity to me and I find that very cool.
monty wrote:If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. iCM ain't for sissies.
mightysparks wrote:ARGH. RARGH. RARGH. DIE.
Kowry wrote:Thanks, Art Garfunky.
Rich wrote:*runs*
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#164

Post by monty »

Feel free to make it a separate thread called "Waiting for sparkie to respond to legitimate concerns regarding the TSZDT".
Last edited by monty on May 20th, 2016, 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
weirdboy
Donator
Posts: 4032
Joined: January 3rd, 2016, 7:00 am
Contact:

#165

Post by weirdboy »

I think we should load this legitimate concern about the definition of "canon" into a cannon and shoot it into space.
User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7149
Joined: May 17th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#166

Post by Gershwin »

Your style is getting more irritating every day, Monty. I suggest you go watch a good film and have a whale blubber snack in the meantime. That might make you a little less tense.
Last edited by Gershwin on May 20th, 2016, 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Posts: 11744
Joined: May 29th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#167

Post by Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi »

Lonewolf2003 on May 20 2016, 10:58:42 AM wrote:By now my only reaction to you is this:
Image
This has been my reaction thoughout the two threads devoted to this subject. Even potentially legitimate points can be lost entirely in the course of monomaniacal, paranoid, filterless, belligerent ravings with no end.

Not naming names or nothing. :whistling:
MMDan
Posts: 211
Joined: January 10th, 2016, 7:00 am
Contact:

#168

Post by MMDan »

I enjoyed a nice walk in the woods. Is the argument over?
Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13430
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#169

Post by Cippenham »

MMDan on May 20 2016, 03:19:41 PM wrote:I enjoyed a nice walk in the woods. Is the argument over?
Do bears still,,in the woods, does Monty still eat whale blubber?
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#170

Post by monty »

It ain't over till the fat lady sings...
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 8916
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#171

Post by xianjiro »

Tra La La La La!

Just kidding - I may not be svelt but I ain't no lady.

I appreciate the mods chiming in as well as people who've shared their views. Besides the occasional adventures with expletives, it's been an informing exchange. There were a number of messages, that had my computer not been offline for 15 or so hours, I might have responded to with :thumbsup: or :poshclap: or whatever. Mostly it would be appreciative and I'd resist the urge to use :finger: but see, I still snuck it in. Maybe we should start a new thread to figure out who the finger is for. No one really - just don't dare call me a 'whinging film snob' unless you want me to whip out the finger! You have been warned! I think we should do a poll to see who'll be the first, second, and third ones to pull my chain.

And thanks for that short list from Rotten Tomatoes though now I forget who posted it. I'll have to put those on the watchlist then since I've already seen all but 8 of the TSZDT top 100 (and those 8 aren't available through my local library). I'm not finding some of the lower ranked titles as inspiring.
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3851
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#172

Post by Ebbywebby »

Whew, a lot of posts since I last opened this thread. Pulling out some quotes to respond to....

JoachimT:
"entertaining" is not the same as "game"
I watch movies for entertainment, whether it's a 10 hour Béla Tarr or the latest blockbuster. All different forms of "entertaining". You make watching movies into a game with a set of rules where the person who has seen the most movies that fit these rules is the biggest cinephile or at least the biggest iCM-er. That's just silly.

I wonder, if iCM would remove the overall rankings, would we still be having this endless discussion about TSZDT?


You are far, far too hung up on my word choice of "game" and are sidestepping the real issue: the huge philosophical difference between having rankings based on seeing good/important/renowned/fill-in-whatever-adjective-pleases-you movies and having rankings based on simply seeing as many movies as possible. The site is evolving toward the latter and it's really dismaying to me. We're now approaching 15,000 films that ICM recommends as stand-out movies to see. Seriously? Would you like to see 15,000 movies? I wouldn't. And more and more, it's seeming like new lists are being added not to fill some thematic hole but just because "Hey, it has been some months since we added any lists and we're feeling restless. And we need at least four lists to scratch that itch."

If you go back to the top 250 of the last "favorite unofficial checks" poll and remove all the films that are now official checks, you're left with (my subjective estimation) maybe 80 or so films that aren't solidly esoteric. The well is running dry.

And it seems dubious to roll your eyes about "rules," considering you pour far more energy into haggling about ICM rules than I do. I find many of the forum debates bewildering in their extended intensity, and even sort of a comfort when I'm scolding myself for being too film-obsessed. And as far as being competitive about this alleged "game," I would never dream of aggressively writing to possible "cheaters" like you do, hoping to trap them in a lie. I also don't worry much about my rank on individual lists, and I've seen the pride you take in your reign over the UNESCO list.

And to answer your question, I think this dispute would exist as long as TSZDT is an official list. Regardless of whether there are overall user rankings. Now, if it *weren't* an official list, the dispute would be restricted to horror zealots niggling over whether their pet films are ranked high enough or not. I wouldn't be part of that dialogue.

Lonewolf 2003:
It's not just joachim (or the mods) that hold this view you disagree with, but as far as I know you're one of the very few people who feel that way about someone who watches 5000 arthouse movies being more worthwile. So most people have no problems at all the way the site is going in.


And it seems like you are too hung up on the word "arthouse." I doubt that I'm one of very few people who feels that watching "good" movies is more worthwhile than watching "bad" ones, and that's the main principle here. Maybe it's more disputable that I'd believe 5,000 "arthouse" films are likely to be more "good" than a set of 5,000 films from "horror" or even the general mainstream, but that's kind of a more specific, secondary issue.

Do you really believe a film fan's "cred" should be based on nothing but how many movies he has seen, regardless of their quality? And you have no problem with the site "going in that way"?

Making lists official is a kind of extra seal of quality, it shows that the list is of good quality (in the way the list is made and such, not about the movies on it). That's why we are all so passionate discussing about what lists should get adopted or not and why. Otherwise we could indeed drop that whole distinction between official and unofficial lists


I'm very skeptical about your idea that it's all about sticking up for film quality, with nothing to do with "competition." If competition weren't a factor, there wouldn't be a stack of replies to every list addition/update where people fuss over how many checks they have gained or lost.

But to me being canon (whatever the hell the criteria for that are) is not a criteria for adoptation.


This statement just totally baffles me. Along your earlier suggestion that you care about lists being based on some solid selection procedure, but don't care whether the resulting movie endorsements are any good.

cinephage:
It's wonderful that ICM offers such a wide range of lists, not just the canon.


Absolutely. And that's why it's delightful that users are allowed to share their own quirky personal lists. But the *official* lists? Should be something resembling the canon -- in my opinion.

ChrisReynolds:
Incidentally, the number of films only on the TSZDT list drastically went up after the Top 500 Horror list was removed.


Well, of course. I don't have any beef with the number of list-exclusive films that were on the 500 list. It was the 1000 list that went over the line. Unlike Monty, my complaint is less about the list's compilation strategy and just that it's so damn long that a huge pile of trashy movies are on it.

There are only 321 films that were added as official checks by the TSZDT list. They include the following films that are unique to the TSZDT list…

That's just a subset of the ones that score above 80% on RT. That's even with the fact that horror films usually do poorly on Rotten Tomatoes as many mainstream critics dislike the genre.


And why do you suppose that is? Is the only possible explanation that those critics are big snob doodyheads with (MIghty's accusation) heads up their arses? And I doubt you could find many/any movie critics who would dismiss the entire genre...that's an overstatement.

As for that list of 80% RT movies, I'd rather know exactly how many of the 321 scored that high. And how many of those 80% ratings were generated by a weak tally of reviews. Like, I see the rating of "Lemora - A Child's Tale of the Supernatural" (which I've seen but have completely forgotten) is based on just seven reviews. And "Wild Zero"'s rating is based on just five.

Note: I enjoyed "Tucker and Dale vs. Evil" and "Frankenweenie" plenty -- I just wouldn't campaign to make them official checks. On the other hand, I bailed out of "Sightseers" after about 40 minutes.
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3851
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#173

Post by Ebbywebby »

.
Last edited by Ebbywebby on May 20th, 2016, 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#174

Post by monty »

xianjiro on May 20 2016, 05:31:29 PM wrote:... I've already seen all but 8 of the TSZDT top 100 (and those 8 aren't available through my local library). I'm not finding some of the lower ranked titles as inspiring.
You'll have to at least watch the one with the toilet zombies aka the best horror film ever according to mighty, or our Oz superadmin is sure to haunt you.

Meanwhile, still patiently awaiting mighty's response to the legitimate concerns highlighted in the recent discussion...will she ever pluck up the courage to answer the charges?
Last edited by monty on May 21st, 2016, 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3624
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#175

Post by tommy_leazaq »

You guys scared the shit out of the OP and made sure he never step into this forum.. Good job! :lol:
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#176

Post by monty »

Ebbywebby on May 20 2016, 05:44:40 PM wrote:Unlike Monty, my complaint is less about the list's compilation strategy and just that it's so damn long that a huge pile of trashy movies are on it.
Actually, I thought I'd made it abundantly clear that I'm in no way in favour of humongous megalists like the current TSZDT, precisely because with 1,000 items bloat is bound to sneak in. If TSZDT were to reincarnate in a sleaker, tighter edition, it would be a different matter entirely. Official lists should always focus on quality, not quantity (sadly, many here mistakenly seem to think the latter is a good idea, sigh).

@tommy: As the saying goes - if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. iCM ain't for sissies.
Last edited by monty on May 21st, 2016, 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3851
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#177

Post by Ebbywebby »

monty on May 20 2016, 05:53:03 PM wrote:
xianjiro on May 20 2016, 05:31:29 PM wrote:... I've already seen all but 8 of the TSZDT top 100 (and those 8 aren't available through my local library). I'm not finding some of the lower ranked titles as inspiring.
You'll have to at least watch the one with the toilet zombies aka the best horror film ever according to mighty, or our OZ superadmin is sure to haunt you.
Ever scan her Dislikes for horror films? You can find her slagging classics such as Dracula (1931), Vampyr (1932), The Black Cat (1934), The Birds (1963), M (1931) and The Cremator (1969). But if you really want a jolt, sort her Dislikes by official lists. Um, OK.
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 8916
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#178

Post by xianjiro »

You got that right, Tommy! Though my hope is Ben is made of sterner stuff...he's probably just watching films.

One thing I'd like to interject - I think I focus on 'important' films as much as 'good', 'popular', and 'arthouse'. For example, and please don't jump down my throat if it's your favorite film, but I didn't particularly think Titanic was as, well, titanic, as others did in it's day. However, that said, I can see why it was important and how it heralded trends in both CG and blockbusters. I find important films in all genres and from all eras and many countries. I also really enjoy good movies and some of them are even popular or arthouse, once in a while, even experimental. Funny thing, every now and then, I'm even entertained.

My hope for iCM is that we continue to work to find a good mix of the various things film fans look for in movies - shorts, features, and supersized with fries. It's clear there is a lot of passion and a lot of us are pretty passionate about iCM, aren't we.
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3851
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#179

Post by Ebbywebby »

monty on May 20 2016, 06:04:39 PM wrote:
Ebbywebby on May 20 2016, 05:44:40 PM wrote:Unlike Monty, my complaint is less about the list's compilation strategy and just that it's so damn long that a huge pile of trashy movies are on it.
Actually, I thought I'd made it abundantly clear that I'm in no way in favour of humongous megalists like the current TSZDT, precisely because with 1,000 items bloat is bound to sneak in.
OK, but you've been posting a lot of complaints from the other angle too.
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 8916
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#180

Post by xianjiro »

monty on May 20 2016, 06:04:39 PM wrote:
Ebbywebby on May 20 2016, 05:44:40 PM wrote:
Spoiler: click to toggle
Unlike Monty, my complaint is less about the list's compilation strategy and just that it's so damn long that a huge pile of trashy movies are on it.
Spoiler: click to toggle
Actually, I thought I'd made it abundantly clear that I'm in no way in favour of humongous megalists like the current TSZDT, precisely because with 1,000 items bloat is bound to sneak in. If TSZDT were to reincarnate in a sleaker, tighter edition, it would be a different matter entirely. Official lists should always focus on quality, not quantity
(sadly, many here mistakenly seem to think the latter is a good idea, sigh).

(clipped)
Actually, this doesn't surprise me at all - they're called fans, short for fanatics, for just this reason. I don't blame them for lobbying for that which they care about.
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#181

Post by monty »

xianjiro on May 20 2016, 06:22:42 PM wrote:
monty on May 20 2016, 06:04:39 PM wrote:
Ebbywebby on May 20 2016, 05:44:40 PM wrote:
Spoiler: click to toggle
Unlike Monty, my complaint is less about the list's compilation strategy and just that it's so damn long that a huge pile of trashy movies are on it.
Spoiler: click to toggle
Actually, I thought I'd made it abundantly clear that I'm in no way in favour of humongous megalists like the current TSZDT, precisely because with 1,000 items bloat is bound to sneak in. If TSZDT were to reincarnate in a sleaker, tighter edition, it would be a different matter entirely. Official lists should always focus on quality, not quantity
(sadly, many here mistakenly seem to think the latter is a good idea, sigh).

(clipped)
Actually, this doesn't surprise me at all - they're called fans, short for fanatics, for just this reason. I don't blame them for lobbying for that which they care about.
Obviously. However, such megalists really shouldn't gain official status - like it's been pointed out earlier, they're just too damn big to be workable.
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 10628
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#182

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

monty on May 20 2016, 01:16:01 PM wrote:No matter the exact number of dissenting voices, what's more important is what mighty will do about the legitmate concerns voiced in this discussion. Somehow I fear her tiff with ebby has scared her from checking in here. That means her possee will have to notify her but will they do so or will they do as they're wont to - namely, run and hide in the shadows? :P
You could raise the issue yourself in its thread. I know you we'll enough to know you're brave enough to stand up before mighty and her gang. Before you do so I would advice you to hold a poll so you can show them you're not alone in this. All these users that agree with you probably will feel safe enough to give their opinion in anonymous poll. Or maybe you won't cause you know you're quite alone in this and it isn't an issue at all?
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 10628
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#183

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

Short answer to ebbywebby: I don't believe in measuring the worthiness of people on the quality of the movies they seen. Cause it's not for me to determine if these movies they watched are "good" or "bad". In all my years on different movie forums your opposing view seems to be that a very small minority. So yes I have no problem with the vision the mods seem to have for iCMs future.
Last edited by Lonewolf2003 on May 21st, 2016, 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#184

Post by monty »

@Lonewolf: No reason for that as this thread works quite nicely. Also, having a poll could easily escalate into a witch hunt for those who don't dare stand up to the mighty possee on their own, so I won't be doing that, thankyouverymuch. Since venting these legitimate concerns, I've received several PMs from members thanking me for them finally having a champion. I won't reveal the exact number - suffice it to know that we are legion.

Meanwhile, still waiting for mighty to come out of hiding - seems ebby's outburst scared her off - permanently?
Last edited by monty on May 21st, 2016, 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 10628
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#185

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

monty on May 20 2016, 07:53:27 PM wrote:No reason for that as this thread works quite nicely. Also, having a poll could easily escalate into a witch hunt for those who don't dare stand up to the mighty possee, so I won't be doing that, thankyouverymuch. Since venting these legitimate concerns, I've received several PMs thanking me for them finally having a champion. I won't reveal the exact numner - suffice to know that we are legion.

Meanwhile, still waiting for mighty to come out of hiding...
But polls are anonymous. So that is a non-argument.
And I will give you €2,- for every legitimate pm (meaning they come from real users here or on iCM and aren't clones) you've gotten. I will double that amount if I make one of them public. Furthermore if the amount is more than 5 pms I will publicly announce here you were right and I was wrong.
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#186

Post by monty »

Lonewolf2003 on May 20 2016, 08:03:37 PM wrote:
monty on May 20 2016, 07:53:27 PM wrote:No reason for that as this thread works quite nicely. Also, having a poll could easily escalate into a witch hunt for those who don't dare stand up to the mighty possee, so I won't be doing that, thankyouverymuch. Since venting these legitimate concerns, I've received several PMs thanking me for them finally having a champion. I won't reveal the exact numner - suffice to know that we are legion.

Meanwhile, still waiting for mighty to come out of hiding...
But polls are anonymous. So that is a non-argument.
And I will give you €2,- for every legitimate pm (meaning they come from real users here or on iCM and aren't clones) you've gotten. I will double that amount if I make one of them public. Furthermore if the amount is more than 5 pms I will publicly announce here you were right and I was wrong.
I'm not doing this for money, wolfie, I have loftier goals than that. And yes, polls are anonymous but they could still easily lead into endless badgering of and hunting for members suspected of not toeing the line - I won't give you or the rest of the possee that satisfaction.

Meanwhile, still waiting for mighty to come out of hiding - seems ebby's outburst scared her off - permanently?
Last edited by monty on May 21st, 2016, 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#187

Post by monty »

Anyhow, when did it become mandatory to have a certain number of people backing you before you're allowed to make your concerns about an official list - and in particular, a list that is the pet project of one of the site's head honchos - known here?
If that really is the case, it seems to me that the law of mob rule has taken over iCM - the triumph of might(y) over right. No wonder people here are scared to post...
Last edited by monty on May 21st, 2016, 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3851
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#188

Post by Ebbywebby »

Lonewolf2003 on May 20 2016, 07:51:19 PM wrote:Short answer to ebbywebby: I don't believe in measuring the worthiness of people on the quality of the movies they seen. Cause it's not for me to determine if these movies they watched are "good" or "bad". In all my years on different movie forums your opposing view seems to be that a very small minority. So yes I have no problem with the vision the mods seem to have for iCMs future.
So you'll spend days and weeks haggling over whether a list of movies (created by people, needless to say?) is credible, but you're aghast at the idea of assessing the credibility of anyone's movie tastes. I'd say this contradiction is totally untenable.

A couple of years down the road, maybe the big ICM debate will be whether TV episodes should count toward someone's rank. And everyone will be in a panic to catch up to Armoreska.
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 8916
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#189

Post by xianjiro »

idk, I always default to apathetic before jumping to scared when assuming why people don't post - can't say I really feel the pall, though of course ... sticks and stones can break my bones, but name calling makes me cry like a big baby - or makes me angry enough that I want to grab my chainsaw and start removing limbs from slutty teens
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 8916
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#190

Post by xianjiro »

Ebbywebby on May 20 2016, 08:33:09 PM wrote:
Lonewolf2003 on May 20 2016, 07:51:19 PM wrote:Short answer to ebbywebby: I don't believe in measuring the worthiness of people on the quality of the movies they seen. Cause it's not for me to determine if these movies they watched are "good" or "bad". In all my years on different movie forums your opposing view seems to be that a very small minority. So yes I have no problem with the vision the mods seem to have for iCMs future.
So you'll spend days and weeks haggling over whether a list of movies (created by people, needless to say?) is credible, but you're aghast at the idea of assessing the credibility of anyone's movie tastes. I'd say this contradiction is totally untenable.

A couple of years down the road, maybe the big ICM debate will be whether TV episodes should count toward someone's rank. And everyone will be in a panic to catch up to Armoreska.
seriously! especially since I rate & check the series as a whole (and not each individual episode) - but then all we'll need to do is call in The Putinator!

:facepalm:
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33367
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#191

Post by joachimt »

monty on May 20 2016, 08:06:59 PM wrote:Meanwhile, still waiting for mighty to come out of hiding - seems ebby's outburst scared her off - permanently?
I think Ebby did and he's about to scare me off as well, assuming to know me and making presumptions. I'm hesitating to respond to some accusations, but it's useless so I won't.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
De Limgralois
Posts: 0
Joined: April 29th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#192

Post by De Limgralois »

Lonewolf2003 on May 20 2016, 08:03:37 PM wrote:
monty on May 20 2016, 07:53:27 PM wrote:No reason for that as this thread works quite nicely. Also, having a poll could easily escalate into a witch hunt for those who don't dare stand up to the mighty possee, so I won't be doing that, thankyouverymuch. Since venting these legitimate concerns, I've received several PMs thanking me for them finally having a champion. I won't reveal the exact numner - suffice to know that we are legion.

Meanwhile, still waiting for mighty to come out of hiding...
But polls are anonymous. So that is a non-argument.
And I will give you €2,- for every legitimate pm (meaning they come from real users here or on iCM and aren't clones) you've gotten. I will double that amount if I make one of them public. Furthermore if the amount is more than 5 pms I will publicly announce here you were right and I was wrong.
This kind of poll are always biased, mainly because smart people don't lost their time in polls or see the point to participate to such stupid things.

It's interesting to see that most complainers about this horror list don't express always the same kind of complains. Up to the mods to see if these complains invalidate their legitimacy or at the contrary a sign that there's something rotten in iCM. I've no doubt that mods, mighty and followers will just ignore them. We still have no answer for most complains. mighty keep saying that if we don't like her list, that's because we don't like or don't know horror. Followers go with it, followers refuse to answer valid arguments, OK, but iCM will be more and more rotten for its poor, incoherent, coopted choices.

I still have no answer when I complain about the lack of description in official lists.
Nathan Treadway
Donator
Posts: 4410
Joined: June 26th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Springfield, MO, USA
Contact:

#193

Post by Nathan Treadway »

This conversation has become disgustingly bitter. Really, was there any reason for it?
iCM

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ (Matthew 25:37-40)
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 10628
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#194

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

monty on May 20 2016, 08:15:21 PM wrote:Anyhow, when did it become mandatory to have a certain number of people backing you before you're allowed to make your concerns about an official list - and in particular, a list that is the pet project of one of the site's head honchos - known here?
If that really is the case, it seems to me that the law of mob rule has taken over iCM - the triumph of might(y) over right. No wonder people here are scared to post...
You certainly can express your views and complains. But you make accusations that the mods make some kind of authoritarian undemocratic decisions. I wanted to show that your view is not hold by many other members. Therefor it's silly to me to demand that the mods should base their actions on the opinions of a few vocal users. I don't think anyone feels that's the way iCM should go. It's not about mob rule. If there really are a bunch of other users that agree with you, mighty should do something about the description. If not you should accept that you're quite alone in your opinion and accept that the decisions made.
Legitimate concerns about lists should be heard and considered by the the mods, but it's highly possible that those concerns are outweighed by the pros of the list and the cons against other lists in deciding what list to adopt. This all should be done in open debate, which there has been plenty.
Last edited by Lonewolf2003 on May 21st, 2016, 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 10628
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#195

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

Ebbywebby on May 20 2016, 08:33:09 PM wrote:
Lonewolf2003 on May 20 2016, 07:51:19 PM wrote:Short answer to ebbywebby: I don't believe in measuring the worthiness of people on the quality of the movies they seen. Cause it's not for me to determine if these movies they watched are "good" or "bad". In all my years on different movie forums your opposing view seems to be that a very small minority. So yes I have no problem with the vision the mods seem to have for iCMs future.
So you'll spend days and weeks haggling over whether a list of movies (created by people, needless to say?) is credible, but you're aghast at the idea of assessing the credibility of anyone's movie tastes. I'd say this contradiction is totally untenable.

A couple of years down the road, maybe the big ICM debate will be whether TV episodes should count toward someone's rank. And everyone will be in a panic to catch up to Armoreska.
I don't get what so difficult about that. For example if one doesn't particular like fantasy. The one can give his opinion about the criteria for a fantasy list, for example about how recent the list is. So somebody can be involved in a discussion about list adoption without knowing much about the genre. And that's has absolutely nothing to do with assessing someone's taste, cause they like to watch movies from an "inferior" genre. Cause something like that is completely impossible to me. And it seriously baffles me that someone still holds that view in this age and day. The taste of the list maker(s) is also of no concern when assessing a list, one can for example differ completely in taste with a critic but still respect his expertise and knowledge about the subject.

If the general consensus is that iCM should focus on promoting important, canonical, critically acclaimed movies (or however you define them) instead of given users interested in genre x or country y lists to work on, then that's the way iCM should go in indeed.
Last edited by Lonewolf2003 on May 21st, 2016, 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 8916
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#196

Post by xianjiro »

treadwaynathan on May 21 2016, 02:16:54 AM wrote:This conversation has become disgustingly bitter. Really, was there any reason for it?
I keep returning to the phrase 'whinging film snob' followed by the rest of the invective.

:wub:
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 8916
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#197

Post by xianjiro »

I think the mods listen - maybe they listen a bit too much to the mob at times, become too dispirited, and throw up their collective hands in some unknown emotion. edit: I'm thinking about All-time Worldwide Box office

Warning: video includes bad (as in naughty) words that have also been used in this discussion

edit: fixed prior video problem



And let's face it - agreement is going to be very hard around here
Last edited by xianjiro on May 21st, 2016, 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Posts: 11744
Joined: May 29th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#198

Post by Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi »

treadwaynathan on May 21 2016, 02:16:54 AM wrote:This conversation has become disgustingly bitter. Really, was there any reason for it?
It didn't become bitter -- it was bizarrely aggressive and accusatory from the start and hasn't let up. If ever there was a deliberate attempt to put forward potentially legitimate points in a flagrantly counter-productive manner, it couldn't have topped this campaign. If it didn't involve regulars, I would have concluded with confidence that it was trolling.
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 8916
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#199

Post by xianjiro »

wasn't sure exactly where I'd put this, but this seems like an appropriate place and returns a thread from the undead - what could be more appropriate after finishing Juan de los Muertos (2011)? I make no comments about it's inclusion on TSZDT, but at 160 on Cinema Tropical's Best Latin American Films 2010-2019, I have to assume that's about the place where bloat has set in and started to putrefy. I know comments have been made about "shortening" this list, especially given the companion list from the prior decade is just under half as long, but I guess that's the list they published - but what were they thinking? And does this mean it made the list because one programmer gave it #1 or something like that? :shrug: UGH!
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 6107
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#200

Post by Onderhond »

Back when it was released it was quite a "hit". I found it quite amusing (3.0*/5.0*), not great by any means, but still better than most official checks I'm watching :D
Post Reply