Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
500<400 (Nominations Sep 22nd)
Polls: Animation (Results), 2016 awards (Aug 25th), 1987 (Aug 25th), Benelux (Aug 30th), Knockout competition (Round 1)
Challenges: Romance, UK/Ireland, <400 Checks
Film of the Week: Hospital, September nominations (Aug 30th)

New Official List Discussion

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

Re: New Official List Discussion

#3881

Post by Ebbywebby » February 7th, 2019, 2:57 am

An ex-lover (she's in New Zealand...we had exactly one meeting) posted about joining the site for a laugh, and I followed her. We entirely stopped speaking a few years ago, and I think she marked all her checks within a single day. That was a little over eight years ago. Naturally, "a little over eight years" is also how long I've been an ICM member.

max-scl
Posts: 616
Joined: Jun 20, 2015
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

#3882

Post by max-scl » February 21st, 2019, 8:21 pm

I think the BAFTA for Best British Film should be added as an official list, the current BAFTA awards just looks like a not-so-alternative Oscars list. Other nations have their own award so this would be equivalent to that unless there is another award for British cinema.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12141
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#3883

Post by Cippenham » February 22nd, 2019, 9:16 am

Max is spot on

Nathan Treadway
Donator
Posts: 3648
Joined: Jun 26, 2015
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Contact:

#3884

Post by Nathan Treadway » February 22nd, 2019, 2:06 pm

Why not both? :shrug:

max-scl
Posts: 616
Joined: Jun 20, 2015
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

#3885

Post by max-scl » February 22nd, 2019, 2:40 pm

Yes, I think both shoud be official.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12141
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#3886

Post by Cippenham » February 22nd, 2019, 3:30 pm

Agreed

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 6160
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#3887

Post by sol » February 22nd, 2019, 4:10 pm

I nominated BAFTA Best British Film to be Official last year and the suggestion was promptly rejected. :shrug:

Obviously I agree with its worthiness as an ongoing list of worthwhile UK films, so I wish you all the best of luck in convincing the list-mods since my campaign last year failed. Doesn't hurt to try again, I guess.
Former IMDb message boards user /// iCM | IMDb | My Top 500+ Favourite Films /// Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
bdcortright
Posts: 2
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: brooklyn, new york
Contact:

#3888

Post by bdcortright » February 23rd, 2019, 7:48 pm

I feel like theres a real lack of director's official lists. Not that I'm aware of a ton of directors favorite film's list but they can't be that hard to find...

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22892
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3889

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » February 23rd, 2019, 7:51 pm

bdcortright wrote:
February 23rd, 2019, 7:48 pm
I feel like theres a real lack of director's official lists. Not that I'm aware of a ton of directors favorite film's list but they can't be that hard to find...
They are if you want something longer than the 10 films in S&S submissions. Though with LaCinetek there are more now, but the ones we put in the poll didn't do well.

User avatar
erde
Posts: 22
Joined: Jan 02, 2019
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

#3890

Post by erde » March 3rd, 2019, 6:19 pm

Did ICM staff change their minds about removing "Il Grande Cinema Italiano" as official list? Or did I misunderstand the plans somehow? (At least I can still see it on the progress page etc.)
Image

Nathan Treadway
Donator
Posts: 3648
Joined: Jun 26, 2015
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Contact:

#3891

Post by Nathan Treadway » March 3rd, 2019, 6:30 pm

erde wrote:
March 3rd, 2019, 6:19 pm
Did ICM staff change their minds about removing "Il Grande Cinema Italiano" as official list? Or did I misunderstand the plans somehow? (At least I can still see it on the progress page etc.)
It was the other one that was unadopted.

User avatar
erde
Posts: 22
Joined: Jan 02, 2019
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

#3892

Post by erde » March 3rd, 2019, 6:39 pm

Oh, ok! Thanks. My bad.
Image

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6441
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#3893

Post by xianjiro » March 4th, 2019, 2:34 am

erde wrote:
March 3rd, 2019, 6:39 pm
Oh, ok! Thanks. My bad.
Don't sweat it, you weren't the only one confused by that move. I too misunderstood which listed was being targeted, have no understanding why I was confused, and now care even less about figuring that out. I'm wondering if, in the pandemonium after the announcement, someone posted about Il Grande ... and started the confusion.

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

dirty_score
Posts: 201
Joined: Oct 10, 2016
Contact:

#3894

Post by dirty_score » March 4th, 2019, 12:40 pm

just wondering but what will be the approach for the next batch of lists?

will it be the same process like the last one or you guys gonna use the last poll results to pick them out?

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 10771
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3895

Post by mjf314 » March 4th, 2019, 1:09 pm

I don't think there will be another poll before the next batch of adoptions.

There will probably be another poll in the future, but I don't know if it'll be the same format or a different format.

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1859
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#3896

Post by beavis » March 4th, 2019, 4:09 pm

The poll brought some lists to our attention and shed some light on other lists that already had our attention. However convoluted the process (seemed), it gave us quite a good idea on where the interest from a lot of user lies, and also where it doesn't. There could have been some more critical discussion during the polls instead of after, but I guess this is understandable.

So, for the coming few adoption rounds we have our guidance from the poll. Next to the poll info, we will always be looking into new lists that were not nominated for the poll by anybody (at the moment I'm thinking of things like the Denis Grunes top100, the TIFF award, the Silver Condor award for Argentinia and a few others) and better lists for suggestions that were nominated and did well (a better list for female directors, a better second option for Japan). I think our focus will go to a mix of this and lists that did well in the polls for the forseeable future

When the time comes again for more input from the userbase on the list selections (but let me also restate that we are constantly reading comments to use as input in the shaping of the collection of lists!) we might do more polls. But not nessecarily in the same shape as last time (two times actually). It might be that we have a pre-selected set of lists where we want opinions on, or other more focussed questions like that, instead of the broad and open format we had now.

User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3045
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

#3897

Post by WalterNeff » March 4th, 2019, 4:22 pm

I expect a grass-roots campaign for a pre-code list adoption ;-)

User avatar
Minkin
Posts: 332
Joined: Jan 13, 2015
Contact:

#3898

Post by Minkin » March 5th, 2019, 9:07 am

WalterNeff wrote:
March 4th, 2019, 4:22 pm
I expect a grass-roots campaign for a pre-code list adoption ;-)
I second this motion.

Our peaceful protest eventually becomes a sectarian mob hell-bent on Official Status at any price, until forcibly scattered by mod anti-riot squads; to which we respond with protracted guerrilla warfare, taking innocent bystanders in the process!

That or find a nice list we can rally behind. Which pre-code list do you think would be the best choice?

Sin in Soft Focus?

or

Thou Shalt Not: Sex, Sin and Censorship in Pre-code Hollywood

or is there some other / better pre-code list available?
=============================================
Two random thoughts for sources of official lists - on topics where there isn't really a great list to choose from:

1) Why aren't there more lists like Badmovies / 366 Weird Films - that pull from specific websites devoted to a theme, with their best recommendations taken as the list?

2) Why can't the ICMforum create + contribute lists to fill some gaps? We're rather talented at finding obscure stuff and promoting them.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 10771
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3899

Post by mjf314 » March 5th, 2019, 9:27 am

Minkin wrote:
March 5th, 2019, 9:07 am
1) Why aren't there more lists like Badmovies / 366 Weird Films - that pull from specific websites devoted to a theme, with their best recommendations taken as the list?
Do you have a specific website or theme in mind?

User avatar
Minkin
Posts: 332
Joined: Jan 13, 2015
Contact:

#3900

Post by Minkin » March 5th, 2019, 10:19 am

mjf314 wrote:
March 5th, 2019, 9:27 am
Minkin wrote:
March 5th, 2019, 9:07 am
1) Why aren't there more lists like Badmovies / 366 Weird Films - that pull from specific websites devoted to a theme, with their best recommendations taken as the list?
Do you have a specific website or theme in mind?
OK, so you called my bluff. :P

There's also the already official Silentera list. I was thinking of pre-code.com, which has a "best pre-code films" list (with only 30 films, so I'm not going to be advocating for this particular list). Tangentially related would be the films that Cinemassacre covered in Monster Madness - as that would mean there's a complete accompanying video review (which are a tad more academic than something like Cinema Snob).

I prefer these sort of website-based lists for a few reasons:

1) Usually less repetitive canon works
2) All can access the source (unlike most of those book lists)
3) Rather than just listing off the best films, they'll typically include separate pages devoted entirely to the film - with screenshots, a review, trivia, etc - which is far more useful in watching / working on a list than just some critic / director name-checking a big list of films.

While they may lack credentials, these sort of websites have a lot of value for accompanying material and info.

I'm sure others can name some favorite sites (as I'm currently blanking); and I'm sure several of them are already unofficial on ICM!

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1859
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#3901

Post by beavis » March 5th, 2019, 11:17 am

Minkin wrote:
March 5th, 2019, 10:19 am
I was thinking of pre-code.com, which has a "best pre-code films" list (with only 30 films, so I'm not going to be advocating for this particular list).
30 movies chosen as essential are better than 281 movies mentioned in a book on the subject
the other list you link to is 117 films mentioned in a documentary, so also not a usable source by the rules we have set ourselves at the moment
I would have to look into pre-code.com to see what kind of source that is, but it could be ok...?
I agree that a list of 50 would be a more logical length, max 100 I'd say for such a relatively short period in hollywood's history, but personally I have nothing against a list of 30 titles if that turns out to be the best way to represent a time/movement/country/niche.

User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3045
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

#3902

Post by WalterNeff » March 5th, 2019, 2:08 pm

beavis wrote:
March 5th, 2019, 11:17 am
Minkin wrote:
March 5th, 2019, 10:19 am
I was thinking of pre-code.com, which has a "best pre-code films" list (with only 30 films, so I'm not going to be advocating for this particular list).
30 movies chosen as essential are better than 281 movies mentioned in a book on the subject
the other list you link to is 117 films mentioned in a documentary, so also not a usable source by the rules we have set ourselves at the moment
I would have to look into pre-code.com to see what kind of source that is, but it could be ok...?
I agree that a list of 50 would be a more logical length, max 100 I'd say for such a relatively short period in hollywood's history, but personally I have nothing against a list of 30 titles if that turns out to be the best way to represent a time/movement/country/niche.
Sin in Soft Focus easily. Pre-Code didn't have any rules. So the list should reflect that. Down with rules.

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1859
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#3903

Post by beavis » March 5th, 2019, 3:34 pm

I'm sorry Walter, but that isn't a very effective way to discuss, and to reach your goal of having a nice offical pre-code list...

User avatar
Minkin
Posts: 332
Joined: Jan 13, 2015
Contact:

#3904

Post by Minkin » March 5th, 2019, 3:52 pm

Are there specific list adoption rules that would prevent Sin in Soft Focus from being made official? I can't see any arguments against it that wouldn't also apply to The Story of Film: An Odyssey / Amos Vogel / etc? Just like The Celluloid Closet list would make for a fantastic 2nd LGBT list - these are certainly elevated from being considered a "filmography" by being part of the author's general thesis on the topic.

I like that the Pre-code website tries to be a "best of," but that list seems more of a cursory glance on the subject- as the author indicates they don't like lists.

I think that if it's a good list, the source quality can be ignored to a degree - otherwise we'll never get the many, many, many gaps on ICM filled (still waiting for that Directed by Women list). :whistling:

But again, what's wrong with this forum contributing lists? Otherwise we might never get the right "fit"

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22892
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3905

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » March 5th, 2019, 4:48 pm

Minkin wrote:
March 5th, 2019, 3:52 pm
But again, what's wrong with this forum contributing lists? Otherwise we might never get the right "fit"
User constructed lists isn't the direction the site wants to go. While I think our lists are good, some better than others, there's certainly a bit of a feedback loop to our lists, especially on subjects where there isn't a breadth or depth of knowledge here. The lists that could fill gaps are exactly the lists where this forum would be least helpful in making a list that would interest people outside the forum.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7734
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#3906

Post by Lonewolf2003 » March 5th, 2019, 9:37 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
March 5th, 2019, 4:48 pm
Minkin wrote:
March 5th, 2019, 3:52 pm
But again, what's wrong with this forum contributing lists? Otherwise we might never get the right "fit"
User constructed lists isn't the direction the site wants to go. While I think our lists are good, some better than others, there's certainly a bit of a feedback loop to our lists, especially on subjects where there isn't a breadth or depth of knowledge here. The lists that could fill gaps are exactly the lists where this forum would be least helpful in making a list that would interest people outside the forum.
I agree. As much as I like our lists, I think especially those on specific genre or subjects, which we are talking about here, aren’t good enough to be adopted. We aren’t experts enough for that. The democratic rule of “enough people think it’s x than it can be on a x list” is fine for a forum list, but not for an official list.

User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3045
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

#3907

Post by WalterNeff » March 5th, 2019, 9:44 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
March 5th, 2019, 9:37 pm
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
March 5th, 2019, 4:48 pm
Minkin wrote:
March 5th, 2019, 3:52 pm
But again, what's wrong with this forum contributing lists? Otherwise we might never get the right "fit"
User constructed lists isn't the direction the site wants to go. While I think our lists are good, some better than others, there's certainly a bit of a feedback loop to our lists, especially on subjects where there isn't a breadth or depth of knowledge here. The lists that could fill gaps are exactly the lists where this forum would be least helpful in making a list that would interest people outside the forum.
I agree. As much as I like our lists, I think especially those on specific genre or subjects, which we are talking about here, aren’t good enough to be adopted. We aren’t experts enough for that. The democratic rule of “enough people think it’s x than it can be on a x list” is fine for a forum list, but not for an official list.
Which is exactly why we should adopt an academic examination of the pre-code genre. All in favor say "aye." All opposed just skip this post.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6441
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#3908

Post by xianjiro » March 6th, 2019, 7:38 am

I'm waiting for the asses' milk bath live stream before typing anything that rhymes with cry

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

User avatar
fori
Posts: 1053
Joined: Aug 24, 2014
Contact:

#3909

Post by fori » March 6th, 2019, 8:23 am

xianjiro wrote:
March 6th, 2019, 7:38 am
I'm waiting for the asses' milk bath live stream before typing anything that rhymes with cry

User avatar
erde
Posts: 22
Joined: Jan 02, 2019
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

#3910

Post by erde » March 9th, 2019, 2:03 pm

Is there a post somewhere that explicates the criteria that is usually used by the ICM staff in making the decision whether a list should be official or not? I understand that there probably is not a fixed set of criteria and that it is not an exact process, but there must be some arguments that are usually used in favour of some lists compared with others (e.g. artistic or cultural value, uniqueness, not too long or short, not redundant with existing top lists, not too many lists on the same theme or country, not lists that bring too few or too many official checks etc.) This might be self-evident to many of you here, but I'm new, and I could not find such an introductory post, so bear with me. :whistling:
Image

Nathan Treadway
Donator
Posts: 3648
Joined: Jun 26, 2015
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Contact:

#3911

Post by Nathan Treadway » March 9th, 2019, 3:08 pm

erde wrote:
March 9th, 2019, 2:03 pm
Is there a post somewhere that explicates the criteria that is usually used by the ICM staff in making the decision whether a list should be official or not? I understand that there probably is not a fixed set of criteria and that it is not an exact process, but there must be some arguments that are usually used in favour of some lists compared with others (e.g. artistic or cultural value, uniqueness, not too long or short, not redundant with existing top lists, not too many lists on the same theme or country, not lists that bring too few or too many official checks etc.) This might be self-evident to many of you here, but I'm new, and I could not find such an introductory post, so bear with me. :whistling:
This thread is probably the closest there is. Good luck! It's almost 100 pages of mostly bickering... (And speculating).

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1859
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#3912

Post by beavis » March 9th, 2019, 10:23 pm

The current "rules" for selecting lists have evolved from a very loose beginning. Therefore there are official lists on ICM that wouldn't be adopted now, following the current criteria. This might give rise to some confusion about what kind of lists are welcome and what kind of list aren't. A few moderators, including me as the latest addition, have been given the task to curate the adoptions and set some criteria on how to best go about this. In general we are looking for lists that add something new, this has got nothing to do with new official checks. That is not our goal, and we do not take the amount of new official checks a list might bring or not into consideration at all. We have done a big user-poll twice now and this gives valuable information for us. The actual selection of which lists to adopt is something done periodically (we are aiming for twice a year now, after a relatively slow/confused period) via discusssion amongs ourselves. With each round we try to bring a set of lists that should cover a broad spectrum of interest (popular, arthouse, genre and so on).

When we are judging a list on acceptability we are looking for the following:
- a list should have a good source. something that is publicised in print or on-line media
- the source must have a credibility that goes beyond mere fandom
- the length of the list should be in proportion to the topic that is covered
- if a topic is popular it does warrant multiple lists, but each list should have a distinct approach (for a country for instance there could in theory be a national award list, a poll, a list from a single critic and even a box-office list). We also try to bring shorter lists for a beginner or casual interest level and, if the topic warrants it, longer lists for those who want to delve deeper.
- we strongly prefer lists that are updated and kept current to completely static lists when it comes to evolving topics like genre and countries

What we do not like anymore are:
- lists taken from a book or documentary with "every movie mentioned", because those lists are lacking in context
- lists with every movie nominated for a festival/award
- distributer lists (for instance dvd-label lists)

I'm sure I have forgotten some details, and I might not have expressed everything eloquently enough, so other mods feel free to correct and supplement
But I hope I have given some kind of consise overview on our approach and the things we take into consideration when looking for and judging lists for adoption to ICM

User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3045
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

#3913

Post by WalterNeff » March 10th, 2019, 8:54 am

beavis wrote:
March 9th, 2019, 10:23 pm

What we do not like anymore are:
- lists taken from a book or documentary with "every movie mentioned", because those lists are lacking in context
But I'm happy to accept thorough examinations of a genre.

User avatar
erde
Posts: 22
Joined: Jan 02, 2019
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

#3914

Post by erde » March 10th, 2019, 10:32 am

Thank you, beavis, for a very good introduction to your principles! They make very good sense to me. All or most of the criteria are open to interpretation, of course, and everyone probably weighs them a little differently, but that cannot be avoided. A very intuitive and sensible set of principles, nonetheless.

I'd suppose that "adding something new", althought it sounds pretty simple, is not always very easy to agree on, either. For example, BBC Culture's 100 greatest foreign-language films (https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/bbc+ ... /gershwin/) was created last year after the poll. Someone could say that it does not bring anything new to the table, since it has many of the usual suspects and there already is a similar official list from the Empire magazine (https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/the+ ... ld+cinema/). However, it is a new consensus from a respectable source (it got a lot of favourable press in my country, at least). It might also be a good "beginner list" for people who are relatively new to the checking game on the site. (Having followed the past discussion, removing the official status from the Empire list would probably be very demoralizing to many, though, and some might oppose adding a new list, if there might be a risk of making an existing list unofficial. I myself do not see any problem with having a few similar-spirited official lists on the site.)
Image

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1859
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#3915

Post by beavis » March 10th, 2019, 10:40 am

these are indeed the kind of deliberations we are having. And if, for instance, there is a list that we can't really agree on that is already covered in some kind of ways by other lists that are already official (as in the scenario you are painting), we will give preference to something that isn't covered as much yet and will leave it for a later or maybe never date. campaining for a list or posting good arguments for or against it might help bring it to our attention or sway us.

User avatar
hurluberlu
Donator
Posts: 1307
Joined: Jan 04, 2017
Contact:

#3916

Post by hurluberlu » March 10th, 2019, 10:56 am

beavis wrote:
March 9th, 2019, 10:23 pm
What we do not like anymore are:
- distributer lists (for instance dvd-label lists)
so criterion lists will go at some point ? good ! If US users want to track what they have from the collection, fine but it shouldn't be an official list guiding people to select films for their intrinsic value.
#JeSuisCharlie Liberté, Liberté chérie !

Image
ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 22892
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3917

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » March 10th, 2019, 11:12 am

hurluberlu wrote:
March 10th, 2019, 10:56 am
beavis wrote:
March 9th, 2019, 10:23 pm
What we do not like anymore are:
- distributer lists (for instance dvd-label lists)
so criterion lists will go at some point ? good ! If US users want to track what they have from the collection, fine but it shouldn't be an official list guiding people to select films for their intrinsic value.
I don't see it or MOC going anywhere. They have a cultural cachet that makes them still of interest to a large portion of the userbase.

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1859
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#3918

Post by beavis » March 10th, 2019, 11:14 am

as you might have noticed there is a large resistence against removing lists :)
we are not going to retro-actively purge ICM with new rules (current opinions rather) in mind, don't worry (or sorry, depending on your point of view)

we cannot exclude there might be a few more replacements in the future or an even rarer pruning when an official list would become entirely obsolete (and the collection so bulky that the pruning would make sense to bring more clarity and shape to it all). we are entirely free to do so (although Marijn always keeps a final say of course), but are ourselfs also mostly against removing lists that a lot of users are working with, happy with and so on.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3142
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#3919

Post by Fergenaprido » March 10th, 2019, 1:51 pm

Congrats on becoming a list moderator beavis :)

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1859
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#3920

Post by beavis » March 10th, 2019, 2:00 pm

I joined the team since last summer already, but I want to try to answer more questions in this thread regarding lists adoptions on ICM
Especially now we've started preparing the next round (don't get exited, very early days yet ;))

Post Reply