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

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3851
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#41

Post by Ebbywebby »

xianjiro on May 18 2016, 04:26:07 AM wrote:I disagree about the TSZDT sources not being legit. Please see the list of sources.
My recollection is MightySparks "democratically" used every single best-horror list she could find, regardless of whether it was from some oblivious 14-year-old or not.

SeanMX12 was the one who came out of the dark and knocked everyone's rankings down.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33367
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#42

Post by joachimt »

Ebbywebby on May 18 2016, 08:06:18 PM wrote:
xianjiro on May 18 2016, 04:26:07 AM wrote:I disagree about the TSZDT sources not being legit. Please see the list of sources.
My recollection is MightySparks "democratically" used every single best-horror list she could find, regardless of whether it was from some oblivious 14-year-old or not.
That's the only problem I have with the list. I hope one day she decides that she has enough authorative sources so she can remove the fan-lists. Apart from that it's a tremendous effort and I really appreciate all the work she's done.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3851
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#43

Post by Ebbywebby »

xianjiro:"7% of official checks are horror"

Yowsa. That's a pretty shocking statistic to consider. And then MightySparks insists horror is "ignored" and needs more official lists. While childishly wailing that people who don't love horror are big fat snobby-wobbs with their heads up their asses.

The percentage is probably even 8%, if you add whatever official horror checks aren't on Mighty's ESTHFIC list. Can't guess how many more there would be, but I note there are 1097 official checks with "Horror" in the Genre field. And it's not like the Genre fields are thoroughly, properly filled in.
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#44

Post by monty »

Indeed, Ebbywebby. For sparkie to get more horror lists would entail having to drop the bloated TSZDT first. Horror is grotesquely overrepresented as it is now.
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 10628
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#45

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

TSZDT is a great addition to the side, but with it the horror genre is covered enough on the site.

(Only possible additions in the future could be smaller lists in specific subgenres, like the Giallo list or a slasher list)
Last edited by Lonewolf2003 on May 19th, 2016, 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ChrisReynolds
Donator
Posts: 2642
Joined: December 29th, 2011, 7:00 am
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

#46

Post by ChrisReynolds »

Lonewolf2003 on May 19 2016, 07:56:03 AM wrote:TSZDT is a great addition to the side, but with it the horror genre is covered enough on the site.

(Only possible additions in the future could be smaller lists in specific subgenres, like the Giallo list or a slasher list)
Horror is one of the widest and most worked in genres. If you look at the They Shoot Pictures Don't They list, 5% of those are horror, so 7% of official checks isn't crazy unreasonable.
joachimt on May 19 2016, 12:48:10 AM wrote:
Ebbywebby on May 18 2016, 08:06:18 PM wrote:
xianjiro on May 18 2016, 04:26:07 AM wrote:I disagree about the TSZDT sources not being legit. Please see the list of sources.
My recollection is MightySparks "democratically" used every single best-horror list she could find, regardless of whether it was from some oblivious 14-year-old or not.
That's the only problem I have with the list. I hope one day she decides that she has enough authorative sources so she can remove the fan-lists. Apart from that it's a tremendous effort and I really appreciate all the work she's done.
This misrepresents how the list is made. They aren't just put in one folder and then have our Film Counter program run on them. They are weighted by authoritativeness of the list-maker and classification.
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 31319
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#47

Post by mightysparks »

ChrisReynolds on May 19 2016, 10:28:17 AM wrote:
Lonewolf2003 on May 19 2016, 07:56:03 AM wrote:TSZDT is a great addition to the side, but with it the horror genre is covered enough on the site.

(Only possible additions in the future could be smaller lists in specific subgenres, like the Giallo list or a slasher list)
Horror is one of the widest and most worked in genres. If you look at the They Shoot Pictures Don't They list, 5% of those are horror, so 7% of official checks isn't crazy unreasonable.
joachimt on May 19 2016, 12:48:10 AM wrote:
Ebbywebby on May 18 2016, 08:06:18 PM wrote:My recollection is MightySparks "democratically" used every single best-horror list she could find, regardless of whether it was from some oblivious 14-year-old or not.
That's the only problem I have with the list. I hope one day she decides that she has enough authorative sources so she can remove the fan-lists. Apart from that it's a tremendous effort and I really appreciate all the work she's done.
This misrepresents how the list is made. They aren't just put in one folder and then have our Film Counter program run on them. They are weighted by authoritativeness of the list-maker and classification.
60% of the weighting is just from critics lists/books/polls. Each category and each list is weighted differently. An all-time list from a non-critic, for example, contributes to 0.04% on average.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 31319
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#48

Post by mightysparks »

Ebbywebby on May 19 2016, 02:04:21 AM wrote:While childishly wailing that people who don't love horror are big fat snobby-wobbs with their heads up their asses.
No, just the ones making snarky comments whilst crying because they can't possibly ignore a list they don't like or people who like something they don't. Though anyone who dismisses an entire genre or film movement deserves it really.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#49

Post by monty »

Nobody dismisses the horror genre but the TSZDT is way too bloated - it should be given a solid trimming so as to get rid of all the shitty deadweight that's dragging it down.
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3851
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#50

Post by Ebbywebby »

mightysparks on May 19 2016, 11:14:24 AM wrote:
Ebbywebby on May 19 2016, 02:04:21 AM wrote:While childishly wailing that people who don't love horror are big fat snobby-wobbs with their heads up their asses.
No, just the ones making snarky comments whilst crying because they can't possibly ignore a list they don't like or people who like something they don't. Though anyone who dismisses an entire genre or film movement deserves it really.
You have this consistent, willful insistence on not recognizing that people enjoy the "competitive" nature of ICM and don't like seeing other users "rewarded" for watching lousy teen horror flicks. It undermines the whole principle of the site. And as someone else said, no one has dismissed the entire genre so that's a straw-man argument.

Almost half of the films (493/1000) on your ESTHFIC list are on no other official list. A testament to how little general value they hold and how bloated this list is.

The list is also almost a third (306/1000) composed of 21st-century films, which is another testament to its shallowness and naively young contributors.
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#51

Post by monty »

All valid points there, ebby. Like you point out, there's way too much teenybopper flotsam on sparkie's list. It's a far cry from offering us anything resembling a horror canon - too much bloat for that. I'm pretty sure the number of list items could be halved and one would be left with a much tighter and far more enjoyable quality list.
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#52

Post by monty »

Also, I think the sheer number of shitty bloat items on the TSZDT effectively deter anyone from completing it - and what is more, may even turn them off the horror genre for quite some time...
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2083
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#53

Post by Torgo »

I can't believe this discussion still comes up in every thread .. :huh:
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#54

Post by monty »

It's a reflection of the massive discontent the compiling of the TSZDT "sparks"....
User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3319
Joined: July 27th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#55

Post by WalterNeff »

I'm compiling the 10,000 greatest Noirs, and that's only the first half of the list.
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Posts: 11744
Joined: May 29th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#56

Post by Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi »

WalterNeff on May 19 2016, 05:57:36 PM wrote:I'm compiling the 10,000 greatest Noirs, and that's only the first half of the list.
:thumbsup:
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#57

Post by monty »

The massive bloat lists, of which TSZDT is the prime example, will be the undoing of iCM - mark my words.
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3851
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#58

Post by Ebbywebby »

WalterNeff on May 19 2016, 05:57:36 PM wrote:I'm compiling the 10,000 greatest Noirs, and that's only the first half of the list.
I think the More Noirs list is major overkill too, but at least knowing about those films requires a lot of digging and esoteric historical knowledge. It's not a list full of lousy, contemporary popcorn movies that cable channels routinely use to fill time during off hours.
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 31319
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#59

Post by mightysparks »

Your comments only reinforce the exact reason I made the list. The reason most films aren't on other lists is because the genre is dismissed and ignored. The fact that you refer to them as bloat and 'shitty teen horror' is, again, just dismissive. You not liking a film does not make it fluff or bloat. There are plenty of lists on the site with films that I think are pointless and would rather not be 'competing' against but iCM is supposed to have variety. If you don't want to compete against people watching films you're not interested in that's your own problem.

Also, the list is heavy on 21st century films simply because more horror films are being made - and watched - now. The 21st century has nearly the lowest percentage of films in the list from those that have been voted for. The 80s, 70s and 60s, if I recall correctly, actually have the highest percentage of films. And again, it's your own problem if you're dismissing films from a goddamn century.

If you're not interested in horror you're never going to be and this list is never going to make you happy. I don't care. The list is for people who are interested in horror.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 31319
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#60

Post by mightysparks »

Ebbywebby on May 19 2016, 06:35:30 PM wrote:
WalterNeff on May 19 2016, 05:57:36 PM wrote:I'm compiling the 10,000 greatest Noirs, and that's only the first half of the list.
I think the More Noirs list is major overkill too, but at least knowing about those films requires a lot of digging and esoteric historical knowledge. It's not a list full of lousy, contemporary popcorn movies that cable channels routinely use to fill time during off hours.
So because you like noir that list is ok? It's compiled by finding movies that have been mentioned as being noir. How is that a good foundation for a list of the 'best'?
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2083
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#61

Post by Torgo »

monty on May 19 2016, 05:52:29 PM wrote:It's a reflection of the massive discontent the compiling of the TSZDT "sparks"....
Look, this isn't really about my opinion on that certain list (while I'm a big fan of its approach I also could do with half of the length) but that the lamentations about it just keep popping up anywhere. Which, no, doesn't show an overall and general discontent with the list but the stubbornness of a few forum members. Being the loudest and most present isn't the same as being the majority, sorry.

Having a look at the likes/dislikes of TSZDT on iCM, it's pretty obvious that is has a quite solid fanbase - more than other megalists ..
Image
Added 2 of the most famous lists for scale.


Just accept the existence of it on iCM, because it won't go. The constant nagging in so many threads of this forum don't change anything than a decline of discussion culture and staying on topic.

(I like your pun, though.)
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3851
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#62

Post by Ebbywebby »

mightysparks on May 19 2016, 06:42:54 PM wrote:
Ebbywebby on May 19 2016, 06:35:30 PM wrote:
WalterNeff on May 19 2016, 05:57:36 PM wrote:I'm compiling the 10,000 greatest Noirs, and that's only the first half of the list.
I think the More Noirs list is major overkill too, but at least knowing about those films requires a lot of digging and esoteric historical knowledge. It's not a list full of lousy, contemporary popcorn movies that cable channels routinely use to fill time during off hours.
So because you like noir that list is ok? It's compiled by finding movies that have been mentioned as being noir. How is that a good foundation for a list of the 'best'?
I DON'T particularly like noir. In fact, on the whole, I probably prefer horror.

Heck, my ICM profile page even says "As far more 'acclaimed' movies go, I deviate in not being so keen on Westerns, war movies, film noir, adapted plays or international films about An Impoverished Underdog Who Somehow Rises From Hellish Surroundings and Finds Salvation."

With the three official noir lists, I've seen 29/50, 34/250 and 100/712. I've seen 367/1000 of your ESTHFIC list.
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3851
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#63

Post by Ebbywebby »

Torgo: Having a look at the likes/dislikes of TSZDT on iCM, it's pretty obvious that is has a quite solid fanbase

Well, of course it does. Because zombie flicks and the like are movies for the masses. I thought this site was supposed to be about nudging people toward "good" films rather than popular ones.
Last edited by Ebbywebby on May 20th, 2016, 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 31319
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#64

Post by mightysparks »

And whose definition of 'good films' are we using? If we're using mine, let's get rid of all lists and just use my personal favourites lists because I only like about 30% or less of every list, so clearly iCM is not doing a good job of nudging me towards good films.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#65

Post by monty »

I think the point we're all trying to make is that the TSZDT is way too inclusive - it doesn't differentiate betweeen what's popular atm (box-office fluff, etc.) and what is considered canon by film historians/experts. Don't we want lists that reflect the very best of a genre? If so, lists with an abundance of fluffy fillers (aka flavor of the month) should be rejected outright. Quality over quantity should be the guiding principle for any official list - keep it tight. Unfortunately, the TSZDT fails in that respect (as do most such megalists).
Last edited by monty on May 20th, 2016, 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#66

Post by monty »

mighty: Here's a start: All fan lists should be removed. Only lists from film historians and acknowledged film experts who have published books on the genre should be allowed.
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 10628
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#67

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

Ebbywebby on May 19 2016, 07:01:07 PM wrote:Torgo: Having a look at the likes/dislikes of TSZDT on iCM, it's pretty obvious that is has a quite solid fanbase

Well, of course it does. Because zombie flicks and the like are movies for the masses. I thought this site was supposed to be about nudging people toward "good" films rather than popular ones.
No it isn't
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 10628
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#68

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

Torgo on May 19 2016, 06:54:24 PM wrote:
monty on May 19 2016, 05:52:29 PM wrote:It's a reflection of the massive discontent the compiling of the TSZDT "sparks"....
Look, this isn't really about my opinion on that certain list (while I'm a big fan of its approach I also could do with half of the length) but that the lamentations about it just keep popping up anywhere. Which, no, doesn't show an overall and general discontent with the list but the stubbornness of a few forum members. Being the loudest and most present isn't the same as being the majority, sorry.




Just accept the existence of it on iCM, because it won't go. The constant nagging in so many threads of this forum don't change anything than a decline of discussion culture and staying on topic.

(I like your pun, though.)
Hear, hear. :worship:
Last edited by Lonewolf2003 on May 20th, 2016, 1:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#69

Post by monty »

And for the record: the More Noir list being official is a travesty - it's bloat heaven!
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3851
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#70

Post by Ebbywebby »

mightysparks on May 19 2016, 06:40:54 PM wrote:Your comments only reinforce the exact reason I made the list. The reason most films aren't on other lists is because the genre is dismissed and ignored. The fact that you refer to them as bloat and 'shitty teen horror' is, again, just dismissive. You not liking a film does not make it fluff or bloat. There are plenty of lists on the site with films that I think are pointless and would rather not be 'competing' against but iCM is supposed to have variety. If you don't want to compete against people watching films you're not interested in that's your own problem.

Also, the list is heavy on 21st century films simply because more horror films are being made - and watched - now. The 21st century has nearly the lowest percentage of films in the list from those that have been voted for. The 80s, 70s and 60s, if I recall correctly, actually have the highest percentage of films. And again, it's your own problem if you're dismissing films from a goddamn century.
And you labeling horror naysayers as snobs with their heads up their asses isn't "dismissive"?

You behave so shrill and childishly. It boggles my mind that you've gained so much "clout" on these sites. I guess sheer prolificacy counts for a lot. I mean, is there anything worse on this forum than those excruciatingly adolescent, indulgent threads you started about what boys might like you? I can't even believe my eyes, scanning that nonsense.

In any case, I do not say those films are fluff or bloat just based on MY tastes, but based on what other people say. People who AREN'T strongly slanted toward horror and are just general film lovers. How many of those 1000 films are rated "Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes?

And on your list, I count 89 films from the 60s, 171 from the 70s and 194 from the 80s.
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#71

Post by monty »

Let's keep it civil, guys, no need for personal attacks. Nobody would deny that mighty has done a tremendous job of compiling lists, however, the composition of them is debatable.
Last edited by monty on May 20th, 2016, 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 31319
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#72

Post by mightysparks »

There are only about 100 of those. I originally tried making it with just those but historians and film experts generally just completely ignore horror (hence the list). As mentioned those lists still make up 60% of the weighting.

Your personal opinion about the films on a list are not relevant. It's how the list is put together and what it represents that's important. Horror is kind of unlike any other genre and is more inclusive and open, so I don't see why the lists shouldn't be too. There are certain lists that I don't choose (anything involving Netflix is ignored and anything without a clear purpose. Some people make lists with films they haven't even seen, um bye). There are some films on there that are kind of iffy, but the for the most part it accurately reflects what is considered good in the horror world. I'm currently in the process of making my own personal horror canon to see how much it differs from TSZDT, but I'd say it would end up fairly similar.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image
User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3319
Joined: July 27th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#73

Post by WalterNeff »

The noir list is just fine, because even the worst noir is better than the best Godard ;-)
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 31319
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#74

Post by mightysparks »

Ebbywebby on May 19 2016, 07:17:36 PM wrote:
mightysparks on May 19 2016, 06:40:54 PM wrote:Your comments only reinforce the exact reason I made the list. The reason most films aren't on other lists is because the genre is dismissed and ignored. The fact that you refer to them as bloat and 'shitty teen horror' is, again, just dismissive. You not liking a film does not make it fluff or bloat. There are plenty of lists on the site with films that I think are pointless and would rather not be 'competing' against but iCM is supposed to have variety. If you don't want to compete against people watching films you're not interested in that's your own problem.

Also, the list is heavy on 21st century films simply because more horror films are being made - and watched - now. The 21st century has nearly the lowest percentage of films in the list from those that have been voted for. The 80s, 70s and 60s, if I recall correctly, actually have the highest percentage of films. And again, it's your own problem if you're dismissing films from a goddamn century.
And you labeling horror naysayers as snobs with their heads up their asses isn't "dismissive"?

You behave so shrill and childishly. It boggles my mind that you've gained so much "clout" on these sites. I guess sheer prolificacy counts for a lot. I mean, is there anything worse on this forum than those excruciatingly adolescent, indulgent threads you started about what boys might like you? I can't even believe my eyes, scanning that nonsense.

In any case, I do not say those films are fluff or bloat just based on MY tastes, but based on what other people say. People who AREN'T strongly slanted toward horror and are just general film lovers. How many of those 1000 films are rated "Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes?

And on your list, I count 89 films from the 60s, 171 from the 70s and 194 from the 80s.
Alright firstly, I responded childishly to childish comments.

Secondly, don't you fucking dare bring my personal life into a conversation about lists. It was nothing to do with 'boys that like me', it was about fucking conflicts between my friends causing problems in my life that I couldn't talk to anyone in real life about.

Thirdly, I couldn't give a shit about Rotten Tomatoes. And if you'd read my comment properly you would've realised I'd said OUT OF ALL THE FILMS THAT HAVE BEEN VOTED FOR.

I am not talking to you anymore about this shit. How fucking dare you even comment about my personal life, especially on a public thread. You fucking arsehole.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 10628
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#75

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

Maybe discussion about how the TSZDT is or should be compiled, should be done in its own thread.
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#76

Post by monty »

Mighty, I find it somewhat of a double standard that you're allowed to include fan lists in your pet project, while others are told it's a no-go. If you think there's a lack of film historians/experts for the horror genre, it's nothing compared to the samurai genre where the lack of such iCM authoritative lists is massive. When we were debating introducing a samurai list, the consensus among the list domos here was that only lists by film historians/experts with a publishing history would be accepted as sources. Why should your pet project be exempted from the rules imposed on the rest of us here?

Would also be real interesting to hear from the list mods on this issue...
Last edited by monty on May 20th, 2016, 1:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 10628
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#77

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

monty on May 19 2016, 07:28:00 PM wrote:Mighty, I find it somewhat of a double standard that you're allowed to include fan lists in your pet project, while others are told it's a no-go. If you think there's a lack of film historians/experts for the horror genre, it's nothing compared to the samurai genre where the lack of such iCM authoritative lists is massive. When we were debating introducing a samurai list, the consensus among the list domos here was that only lists by film historians/experts with a publishing history would be accepted as sources. Why should your pet project be exempted from the rules imposed on the rest of us here?
Cause it's not just only a fan list and mostly experts lists that are counted in it. And they are also weighed in the counting. That's completly different then it being a list made by just one fan, which that discussion was about.
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#78

Post by monty »

Lonewolf2003 on May 19 2016, 07:33:10 PM wrote:
monty on May 19 2016, 07:28:00 PM wrote:Mighty, I find it somewhat of a double standard that you're allowed to include fan lists in your pet project, while others are told it's a no-go. If you think there's a lack of film historians/experts for the horror genre, it's nothing compared to the samurai genre where the lack of such iCM authoritative lists is massive. When we were debating introducing a samurai list, the consensus among the list domos here was that only lists by film historians/experts with a publishing history would be accepted as sources. Why should your pet project be exempted from the rules imposed on the rest of us here?
Cause it's not just only a fan list and mostly experts lists that are counted in it. And they are also weighed in the counting. That's completly different then it being a list made by just one fan, which that discussion was about.
The consensus reached in the samurai discussion was that any official list would have to be exclusively based on film historians/ recognized experts. Fan lists didn't factor anywhere in an official list as the list domos saw it. Consequently, I find it more than a little strange that mighty is allowed to deviate from the general rule set in that discussion. But I guess it helps being admin here...

Also, why should there be any need for fan lists at all in the horror genre when there is such an abundance of decent lists made be recognized experts in the field?
Last edited by monty on May 20th, 2016, 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3851
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#79

Post by Ebbywebby »

mightysparks on May 19 2016, 07:24:43 PM wrote:MightySparks (sorry, but I really hate the way quoting works on this forum):

Secondly, don't you fucking dare bring my personal life into a conversation about lists. It was nothing to do with 'boys that like me', it was about fucking conflicts between my friends causing problems in my life that I couldn't talk to anyone in real life about.

Thirdly, I couldn't give a shit about Rotten Tomatoes. And if you'd read my comment properly you would've realised I'd said OUT OF ALL THE FILMS THAT HAVE BEEN VOTED FOR.

I am not talking to you anymore about this shit. How fucking dare you even comment about my personal life, especially on a public thread. You fucking arsehole.
Shriller and shriller. Incredible.

The idea that you throw a squalling, profane tantrum when someone comments on your personal life after YOU aggressively pushed it into the forum is unbelievable beyond words.

And if you "couldn't give a shit" about Rotten Tomatoes, maybe that's a big part of your problem. Right, because it's much more important to seek out Jimmy's top 12 horror movies of all time that his parents bought him tickets for.
User avatar
monty
Posts: 12791
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#80

Post by monty »

Ebbywebby on May 19 2016, 07:39:00 PM wrote:... it's much more important to seek out Jimmy's top 12 horror movies of all time that his babysitter allowed him to watch when he was 8
FTFY
Post Reply