Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 5 released June 2nd)
Polls: 1950s (Results), 1935 (Results), 1966 awards (Jun 9th), 2010s (Jun 30th)
Challenges: TSPDT, 1960s, China/Hong Kong/Taiwan
Film of the Week: Údolí vcel, July nominations (Jun 26th)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2A: Poland vs Mexico (Jun 4th), Match 2B: Tajikistan vs Italy (Jun 14th)

New Official List Discussion

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10747
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

Re: New Official List Discussion

#4561

Post by St. Gloede » April 22nd, 2020, 9:03 pm

Onderhond wrote:
April 21st, 2020, 5:13 pm
sol wrote:
April 21st, 2020, 4:06 pm
Russian cinema is quite broad and varied. I think it's only appropriate that iCM has more than one Official List for Russia to represent that.
Maybe a list that showcases that broadness then? Not just another one with Tarkovsky films and derivatives? :ph43r:
Who are the derivatives? Would love to see some of these.

Honestly, both the current Russian lists seems filled with blockbusters, especially comedies and dramas, and are extremely broad.

If anything one internal and one external list could be good as Russians clearly value their films in a different way than the rest of the world.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3989
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#4562

Post by Onderhond » April 22nd, 2020, 9:17 pm

xianjiro wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 8:07 pm
I too think lists derived from the iCM userbase as well as this forum have value and can potentially contribute to iCM's overall fabulousness.
Yeah, why don't we make ICM even more incestuous.

It's not that I disagree with all of Minkin's arguments, but there's more to the world of film than what critics/professors like and while the average ICM voter may watch multiples of what they watch, most of our big forum list show that on averge we yield pretty much the same films as the critics. Or at least, more of the same but a bit more obscure. While it's beyond doubt that this forum and community has great strengths, it's often blind to its own flaws and weaknesses.

If any of our lists would be worthy of adding to ICM, it would be the iCM Forum's Favourite Unofficial Checks - Top 1000.

User avatar
shugs
Donator
Posts: 514
Joined: Nov 15, 2014
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#4563

Post by shugs » April 22nd, 2020, 9:26 pm

But that would make them official. :circle: :circle:

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10747
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#4564

Post by St. Gloede » April 22nd, 2020, 9:30 pm

fori wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 3:20 pm
For sure I respect it, it’s an interesting project and it’s gone on for impressively long. But what is the goal of the official lists? Is it to prop up such projects? Because that is really all that is going on here. It’s easily the most unserious official list. I think it needs to go, but at least it could be edited to explain how random the project is, and how little rigour the selection entails. Previously Joachimt objected to the idea of even identifying ICM Forum as the source of DtC in the list name, which to me seems ridiculous. I’m not particularly concerned with whether the Indian IMDb list becomes official, it just exposes how flimsy the rationale behind DtC is. I’d likely support it becoming official, but not with any deep conviction. The Indian movie buff community is very large, and the IMDb list is far more relevant in that context than the genre lists are anywhere.

@mjf314
Also worth pointing out that final FOK list was a top 100, so it actually had a lower ratio of films to contributors than DtC currently does.
How can you say you respect the project, but then call it the most "unserious" list?

The purpose of official checks is to create a diverse portfolio of lists that interest the various segments of the userbase and encourages exploration.

DtC is one of the most unique lists on the website, making it one of the most important lists as far as I am concerned.

It highlights films that have been left out of the core Canon, and showcases community approval.

How is it random? How is it not rigorous? This is a decade long project spanning several forums, with a very rigorous process with nomination limits, "term limits", a clear rating process and of course a rating cut-off - which grows higher and higher the more films get a shot at being included.

In terms of key service it works as quality control on less seen films, this is an essential service and the rating methodology separates it from the more common toplists compilations, which highlight different films - both methodologies are good. And of course, the rating methology is set up to only highlight great films as good ends at 2/6.

DtC's history makes it an institution, and an obvious curiosity for anyone ready to go beyond the core Canon. There is also a complete absense of any true competitors - and the website would without a doubt have room and space for more similar projects, such as 500<400.

(Also, why would this forum be the source of DtC? Are you under the mistaken impression that this is an ICM Forum list?)

User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3185
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

#4565

Post by WalterNeff » April 22nd, 2020, 10:16 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 9:30 pm

The purpose of official checks is to create a diverse portfolio of lists that interest the various segments of the userbase and encourages exploration.
Is it now? No mention of that in the FAQs https://www.icheckmovies.com/help/faq/

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11258
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#4566

Post by mjf314 » April 22nd, 2020, 10:24 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 9:03 pm
If anything one internal and one external list could be good as Russians clearly value their films in a different way than the rest of the world.
If you want an external viewpoint, you could use TSPDT. There are 56 Russian and Soviet films in the top 2000.

User avatar
clemmetarey
Donator
Posts: 2328
Joined: Nov 20, 2011
Contact:

#4567

Post by clemmetarey » April 22nd, 2020, 10:26 pm

Minkin wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 6:38 pm
I think we should give far more weight and appreciation to the broad film knowledge of people here at our very forum! We shouldn't be selling this community short.

You'll be hard-pressed to find many film professors who have seen anything approaching the number of films that ICM members have. Hell, most critics fall into that category too. Some of you watch three films a day for years - that just doesn't exist elsewhere. Besides most critics and professors aren't accessing torrents or the rarities that we find.

All is to say that we really have something special here - and our collective film knowledge is probably better than anywhere in the world.

So why can't we curate more film lists then? If we need a list, say Pre-Code, make it a DtC like project and get our film professionals out to start searching and working on such a project!
I'm not saying we should make them officials, but I totally agree about the great ressource the members of this forum would be on a wide variety of lists in need of creation.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10747
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#4568

Post by St. Gloede » April 22nd, 2020, 10:52 pm

WalterNeff wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 10:16 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 9:30 pm

The purpose of official checks is to create a diverse portfolio of lists that interest the various segments of the userbase and encourages exploration.
Is it now? No mention of that in the FAQs https://www.icheckmovies.com/help/faq/
Trolling?

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10747
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#4569

Post by St. Gloede » April 22nd, 2020, 10:56 pm

If you're not trolling Walter, this is the reason consistently given for adopting lists (i.e. user demand/user interest, missing niches).

User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 436
Joined: May 06, 2014
Contact:

#4570

Post by Tasselfoot » April 22nd, 2020, 11:06 pm

DtC is a cool list, although I don't really understand the process. With that said, how many people are "ready to go beyond the core Canon"? On the site, there are 22 people who have seen all the films, 190 that have seen 900+, 469 that have seen 750+, and 1747 at 500+. I've seen 900+, and while I do have a desire to finish TSPDT, I have absolutely none to actively work on DtC or the 1001-2000 list. There are few among the general site's userbase that are going to dive that deep; this forum just happens to be a very large percentage of that userbase.

I still don't have a problem with it, nor have issue with it being official. It's just self-aggrandizing.

I'd really love to see more lists that appeal to a larger audience of user. Lists that are approachable; shorter, from more sources like BFI, TimeOut, AV Club, etc. Best 200 Latin films from 1 decade is not approachable, as one more recent example. It's ok to have some filters and not include every single film voted on by every critic polled when putting a list together.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10747
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#4571

Post by St. Gloede » April 22nd, 2020, 11:11 pm

mjf314 wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 10:24 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 9:03 pm
If anything one internal and one external list could be good as Russians clearly value their films in a different way than the rest of the world.
If you want an external viewpoint, you could use TSPDT. There are 56 Russian and Soviet films in the top 2000.
Is there a trimmed version already?

I expect a pretty big diversion.

(It is also unfortunate that neither of the Russian lists are actually ranked. Live Journal's is alphabetical and Russian Guild's is a compilation of two separate lists, there's no specification regarding ranking and the source, nor the additional links, lead to pages that exist ...).

User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3185
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

#4572

Post by WalterNeff » April 22nd, 2020, 11:13 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 10:56 pm
If you're not trolling Walter, this is the reason consistently given for adopting lists (i.e. user demand/user interest, missing niches).
I never troll. That may be the reason consistently given for adopting lists, but it doesn't seem to be the initial reason for Official Lists. Read the FAQs. All mentions of Official or Top Lists refer to the ranking and award aspects of the site. Somewhere along the third or fourth wave of iCM users the Priesthood of Curation began to take hold, displacing the fun of check chasing gamification with the Sanctity of the Official. My goal is to restore the balance.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10747
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#4573

Post by St. Gloede » April 22nd, 2020, 11:14 pm

Tasselfoot wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:06 pm
I'd really love to see more lists that appeal to a larger audience of user. Lists that are approachable; shorter, from more sources like BFI, TimeOut, AV Club, etc. Best 200 Latin films from 1 decade is not approachable, as one more recent example. It's ok to have some filters and not include every single film voted on by every critic polled when putting a list together.
That is actually a very good idea, which could draw in more users. Depending on how short it could shake the forum of ICM up a little, but could easily be done.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10747
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#4574

Post by St. Gloede » April 22nd, 2020, 11:19 pm

WalterNeff wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:13 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 10:56 pm
If you're not trolling Walter, this is the reason consistently given for adopting lists (i.e. user demand/user interest, missing niches).
I never troll. That may be the reason consistently given for adopting lists, but it doesn't seem to be the initial reason for Official Lists. Read the FAQs. All mentions of Official or Top Lists refer to the ranking and award aspects of the site. Somewhere along the third or fourth wave of iCM users the Priesthood of Curation began to take hold, displacing the fun of check chasing gamification with the Sanctity of the Official. My goal is to restore the balance.
I'm sorry, but this post also reeks of pure comedy. :D

If not, how do you explain "Priesthood of Curation", "Sanctity of the Official". etc.

Enjoy your Star Wars spin-off though.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4362
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#4575

Post by OldAle1 » April 22nd, 2020, 11:21 pm

Tasselfoot wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:06 pm
DtC is a cool list, although I don't really understand the process. With that said, how many people are "ready to go beyond the core Canon"? On the site, there are 22 people who have seen all the films, 190 that have seen 900+, 469 that have seen 750+, and 1747 at 500+. I've seen 900+, and while I do have a desire to finish TSPDT, I have absolutely none to actively work on DtC or the 1001-2000 list. There are few among the general site's userbase that are going to dive that deep; this forum just happens to be a very large percentage of that userbase.

I still don't have a problem with it, nor have issue with it being official. It's just self-aggrandizing.

I'd really love to see more lists that appeal to a larger audience of user. Lists that are approachable; shorter, from more sources like BFI, TimeOut, AV Club, etc. Best 200 Latin films from 1 decade is not approachable, as one more recent example. It's ok to have some filters and not include every single film voted on by every critic polled when putting a list together.
Agree with all of this, basically. I kind of love the canon lists - but I'm kind of at the point where I just don't care enough to work on them also. Especially when I'm down to a bunch of films that are very, very long and/or just don't have any personal appeal. Getting bronze on DTC would be cool but that's probably as far as I go in medal-chasing there.

Honestly at this point I have as much or more interest in several unofficial lists, many of which will certainly never be official, and in creating my own specialized to-see lists. I guess I'm one of those who thinks the gamification is was too big a deal - regardless of any changes that have been made in list adoption policies over the years. I think when any hobby becomes more about bragging rights it's time to take a few steps back myself.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11258
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#4576

Post by mjf314 » April 22nd, 2020, 11:22 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:11 pm
mjf314 wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 10:24 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 9:03 pm
If anything one internal and one external list could be good as Russians clearly value their films in a different way than the rest of the world.
If you want an external viewpoint, you could use TSPDT. There are 56 Russian and Soviet films in the top 2000.
Is there a trimmed version already?

I expect a pretty big diversion.

(It is also unfortunate that neither of the Russian lists are actually ranked. Live Journal's is alphabetical and Russian Guild's is a compilation of two separate lists, there's no specification regarding ranking and the source, nor the additional links, lead to pages that exist ...).
I'm not sure what you mean by a trimmed version, but there's no "Russian films on TSPDT" iCM list if that's what you mean.

Yes, Russian Guild is two separate lists, but each of those 2 lists are ranked.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131020225 ... /null.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20131203055 ... null1.html

User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 3185
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

#4577

Post by WalterNeff » April 22nd, 2020, 11:27 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:19 pm
WalterNeff wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:13 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 10:56 pm
If you're not trolling Walter, this is the reason consistently given for adopting lists (i.e. user demand/user interest, missing niches).
I never troll. That may be the reason consistently given for adopting lists, but it doesn't seem to be the initial reason for Official Lists. Read the FAQs. All mentions of Official or Top Lists refer to the ranking and award aspects of the site. Somewhere along the third or fourth wave of iCM users the Priesthood of Curation began to take hold, displacing the fun of check chasing gamification with the Sanctity of the Official. My goal is to restore the balance.
I'm sorry, but this post also reeks of pure comedy. :D

If not, how do you explain "Priesthood of Curation", "Sanctity of the Official". etc.

Enjoy your Star Wars spin-off though.
I see - so rather than discuss the merits of my position and defend your own, you resort to mockery. Interesting tactic.

User avatar
zuma
Donator
Posts: 2076
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

#4578

Post by zuma » April 23rd, 2020, 12:31 am

Tasselfoot wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:06 pm
DtC is a cool list, although I don't really understand the process. With that said, how many people are "ready to go beyond the core Canon"? On the site, there are 22 people who have seen all the films, 190 that have seen 900+, 469 that have seen 750+, and 1747 at 500+. I've seen 900+, and while I do have a desire to finish TSPDT, I have absolutely none to actively work on DtC or the 1001-2000 list. There are few among the general site's userbase that are going to dive that deep; this forum just happens to be a very large percentage of that userbase.

I still don't have a problem with it, nor have issue with it being official. It's just self-aggrandizing.

I'd really love to see more lists that appeal to a larger audience of user. Lists that are approachable; shorter, from more sources like BFI, TimeOut, AV Club, etc. Best 200 Latin films from 1 decade is not approachable, as one more recent example. It's ok to have some filters and not include every single film voted on by every critic polled when putting a list together.
The new Latin list is what I am watching the most of these days. Absolutely love it. Wonderful addition.

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3145
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#4579

Post by Ebbywebby » April 23rd, 2020, 12:34 am

DTC is obviously a much quirkier list than TSPDT #1001-#2000, because DTC has 281 "on one list" films whereas the #1001-#2000 list only has 19.

I don't really strive to finish either, but there are only a handful of lists I ever directly pursue. And I'm at 850/1001 on the TSPDT top 1000, but if I get up to 900, that's pretty much as far as I'll care to go. I won't finish the list just for the sake of completism or academia.

User avatar
fori
Posts: 1330
Joined: Aug 24, 2014
Contact:

#4580

Post by fori » April 23rd, 2020, 12:51 am

St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 9:30 pm
How can you say you respect the project, but then call it the most "unserious" list?
Why would those two things be incongruent? I have massive respect for my own personal lists, but for the purpose of the site, they are also completely unserious.
The purpose of official checks is to create a diverse portfolio of lists that interest the various segments of the userbase and encourages exploration.
Maybe. If that was really the purpose, why are lists like “Alfred Hitchcock filmography” and “the mindfuck list” not official? People seem pretty keen on those, and there’s a lot to explore in both. But DtC is obviously largely of interest to users of this forum/voters on the poll, that much is obvious from looking at users who have completed more than half of the list. I think the criteria that has largely been pursued is standards of quality, relevance and importance to film history/particular areas of film, an so on. Obviously DtC sticks out like a sore thumb if we are in any way engaged in anything remotely close to the “Priesthood of Curation”.
DtC is one of the most unique lists on the website
Great! I would argue that there are a number of lists the have a more unusual and unique range of films, but I agree, DtC is really interesting sometimes.
making it one of the most important lists as far as I am concerned.
why does that make it a candidate for official status though? Would you also consider something like the The Film Fanatic lists or PdA’s Anti-canon?
It highlights films that have been left out of the core Canon, and showcases community approval.
Again, plenty of lists do that. That’s also the primary domain of the 500<400, though it’s not in the mission statement. There are any number of films that many users can highlight as “deserving more attention”. That doesn’t mean our underrated favourites deserve another official list. As for community approval, you mean the approval of 79 internet users unconnected with any organisation or publication? With only the approval of 8 such users necessary for inclusion? And likely some films in the final list that didn’t even get unanimous approval from 8 users?
How is it random? How is it not rigorous? This is a decade long project spanning several forums, with a very rigorous process with nomination limits, "term limits", a clear rating process and of course a rating cut-off - which grows higher and higher the more films get a shot at being included.
Sure it’s rigourous for a random project conducted by internet users. But in what way is the selection process a meaningful attempt at the stated goal of “doubling the canon”? I made the case before that a single user could go in with a strong bias, rating a particular subset of film very low in every single case, which would reshape the whole list. I wouldn’t be surprised if that sort of thing is already in play. To me it looks like a vehicle for highlighting obscure favourites of forum users. I’ve seen a lot of the list, according to ICM the most of anyone. One of the things I’ve noticed is the prevalence of many French films that look like obvious favourites of yours, and doubtless your love for a certain subset of French movies has had a significant role in shaping the list. Great! But that doesn’t seem rigourous to me.
In terms of key service it works as quality control on less seen films, this is an essential service and the rating methodology separates it from the more common toplists compilations, which highlight different films - both methodologies are good. And of course, the rating methology is set up to only highlight great films as good ends at 2/6.
This is really the appeal of DtC. It relies on the discernment of a few cinephiles to create a list of little known classics and underrated gems. But we already have the 500<400, a system which is not prone replicate the biases of individuals in the way DtC does. The rating methodology is totally random and unpredictable given the small number of contributors. What constitutes a 9/10 is very different for different people. In terms of ratings, how can such varied source material and small sample size be up to the standards of most other official lists? As pointed out before, it’s arguably worse than the FOK list when that hit rock bottom.
DtC's history makes it an institution, and an obvious curiosity for anyone ready to go beyond the core Canon. There is also a complete absense of any true competitors - and the website would without a doubt have room and space for more similar projects, such as 500<400.
But DtC is also not a “true competitor”, because the list ultimately doesn’t represent any meaningful canon, but an abritrary selection of personal favourites that a handful of internet users agree on.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7570
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#4581

Post by xianjiro » April 23rd, 2020, 3:37 am

Onderhond wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 9:17 pm
While it's beyond doubt that this forum and community has great strengths, it's often blind to its own flaws and weaknesses.
alas - in my years it has become apparent that this is a fundamental part of being human

with anything, there are trade offs. Acknowledging a flaw or weakness can sometimes be helpful, but then again, another person will consider the same trait a strength. And given that the community wants different things ... personally, I see a lot more variation in the expressed goals and desires of this community than I gather you do. Must have something to do with our individual perspectives and goals in relation to the site. And please don't take that as a suggestion that somehow you need to change either.

And while my approach to the iCM community is to see it as a big tent - in the sense that we can accommodate many different interests and goals - some things are impossible. We can't make every list official while recommending good lists of hidden gems for people to find. And again, I'm not saying this is anything like what you or anyone else advocates, but there are users who feel "the more the merrier" when it comes to official lists and others who believe there really is "too much of a good thing". Both types, and everyone in between, are members of the community and while we might prefer this or that approach, I don't believe iCM has one over-arching theme.

I think of a friend who has said two things about the movies: 1) there are no good movies made before the 60s/70s and 2) All French films are crazy arthouse shit. People have opinions and it's usually impossible to get them to change when they are so hard and fast. All I can do is reiterate my personal experience and say I don't agree. To argue against such is about as useful as getting into the Mac vs PC debate. :circle: Oy vey indeed!

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

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7570
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#4582

Post by xianjiro » April 23rd, 2020, 3:42 am

Onderhond wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 9:17 pm
If any of our lists would be worthy of adding to ICM, it would be the iCM Forum's Favourite Unofficial Checks - Top 1000.
shugs wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 9:26 pm
But that would make them official. :circle: :circle:
Touché!

And thanks for giving me a good chuckle.

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

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7570
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#4583

Post by xianjiro » April 23rd, 2020, 3:47 am

WalterNeff wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 10:16 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 9:30 pm

The purpose of official checks is to create a diverse portfolio of lists that interest the various segments of the userbase and encourages exploration.
Is it now? No mention of that in the FAQs https://www.icheckmovies.com/help/faq/
think that's St. G's purpose. I've also read somewhere the site's purpose to provide a place for "check whores" to compare their "e-penises". :think:

:shrug:

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

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7570
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#4584

Post by xianjiro » April 23rd, 2020, 3:57 am

St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:14 pm
Tasselfoot wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:06 pm
I'd really love to see more lists that appeal to a larger audience of user. Lists that are approachable; shorter, from more sources like BFI, TimeOut, AV Club, etc. Best 200 Latin films from 1 decade is not approachable, as one more recent example. It's ok to have some filters and not include every single film voted on by every critic polled when putting a list together.
That is actually a very good idea, which could draw in more users. Depending on how short it could shake the forum of ICM up a little, but could easily be done.
Agreed. But I have to wonder how useful a new list of 100 'popular' action films would be if 30 of the films on it are also on the IMDb action list and 60 are on the Action A-Z list. (And no, this is illustrative of a concept and not meant to reflect actual list overlaps.) I'm also going to hazard a guess that the entire list would also have, at best, a handful of new official checks, if that. Would this really satisfy any iCM constituency other than those who get excited about how many awards they have acquired?

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

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7570
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#4585

Post by xianjiro » April 23rd, 2020, 4:01 am

OldAle1 wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:21 pm
Honestly at this point I have as much or more interest in several unofficial lists, many of which will certainly never be official, and in creating my own specialized to-see lists.
Have you ever mentioned those lists? Now I'm curious. I think we all have favorite unofficial lists we work through.

What I'd really love is some statistics about that across the iCM userbase.

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

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7570
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#4586

Post by xianjiro » April 23rd, 2020, 4:04 am

zuma wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 12:31 am
Tasselfoot wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:06 pm
Best 200 Latin films from 1 decade is not approachable, as one more recent example. It's ok to have some filters and not include every single film voted on by every critic polled when putting a list together.
The new Latin list is what I am watching the most of these days. Absolutely love it. Wonderful addition.
once again illustrating the iCM Principle - one user's gold is another's tripe. EDIT: and how many users know how to make menudo?

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

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10747
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#4587

Post by St. Gloede » April 23rd, 2020, 5:25 am

WalterNeff wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:27 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:19 pm
WalterNeff wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:13 pm


I never troll. That may be the reason consistently given for adopting lists, but it doesn't seem to be the initial reason for Official Lists. Read the FAQs. All mentions of Official or Top Lists refer to the ranking and award aspects of the site. Somewhere along the third or fourth wave of iCM users the Priesthood of Curation began to take hold, displacing the fun of check chasing gamification with the Sanctity of the Official. My goal is to restore the balance.
I'm sorry, but this post also reeks of pure comedy. :D

If not, how do you explain "Priesthood of Curation", "Sanctity of the Official". etc.

Enjoy your Star Wars spin-off though.
I see - so rather than discuss the merits of my position and defend your own, you resort to mockery. Interesting tactic.
I didn't see a position, only jokes. If you have a position, feel free to re-state it.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10747
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#4588

Post by St. Gloede » April 23rd, 2020, 6:00 am

fori wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 12:51 am
St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 9:30 pm
How can you say you respect the project, but then call it the most "unserious" list?
Why would those two things be incongruent? I have massive respect for my own personal lists, but for the purpose of the site, they are also completely unserious.
The purpose of official checks is to create a diverse portfolio of lists that interest the various segments of the userbase and encourages exploration.
Maybe. If that was really the purpose, why are lists like “Alfred Hitchcock filmography” and “the mindfuck list” not official? People seem pretty keen on those, and there’s a lot to explore in both. But DtC is obviously largely of interest to users of this forum/voters on the poll, that much is obvious from looking at users who have completed more than half of the list. I think the criteria that has largely been pursued is standards of quality, relevance and importance to film history/particular areas of film, an so on. Obviously DtC sticks out like a sore thumb if we are in any way engaged in anything remotely close to the “Priesthood of Curation”.
DtC is one of the most unique lists on the website
Great! I would argue that there are a number of lists the have a more unusual and unique range of films, but I agree, DtC is really interesting sometimes.
making it one of the most important lists as far as I am concerned.
why does that make it a candidate for official status though? Would you also consider something like the The Film Fanatic lists or PdA’s Anti-canon?
It highlights films that have been left out of the core Canon, and showcases community approval.
Again, plenty of lists do that. That’s also the primary domain of the 500<400, though it’s not in the mission statement. There are any number of films that many users can highlight as “deserving more attention”. That doesn’t mean our underrated favourites deserve another official list. As for community approval, you mean the approval of 79 internet users unconnected with any organisation or publication? With only the approval of 8 such users necessary for inclusion? And likely some films in the final list that didn’t even get unanimous approval from 8 users?
How is it random? How is it not rigorous? This is a decade long project spanning several forums, with a very rigorous process with nomination limits, "term limits", a clear rating process and of course a rating cut-off - which grows higher and higher the more films get a shot at being included.
Sure it’s rigourous for a random project conducted by internet users. But in what way is the selection process a meaningful attempt at the stated goal of “doubling the canon”? I made the case before that a single user could go in with a strong bias, rating a particular subset of film very low in every single case, which would reshape the whole list. I wouldn’t be surprised if that sort of thing is already in play. To me it looks like a vehicle for highlighting obscure favourites of forum users. I’ve seen a lot of the list, according to ICM the most of anyone. One of the things I’ve noticed is the prevalence of many French films that look like obvious favourites of yours, and doubtless your love for a certain subset of French movies has had a significant role in shaping the list. Great! But that doesn’t seem rigourous to me.
In terms of key service it works as quality control on less seen films, this is an essential service and the rating methodology separates it from the more common toplists compilations, which highlight different films - both methodologies are good. And of course, the rating methology is set up to only highlight great films as good ends at 2/6.
This is really the appeal of DtC. It relies on the discernment of a few cinephiles to create a list of little known classics and underrated gems. But we already have the 500<400, a system which is not prone replicate the biases of individuals in the way DtC does. The rating methodology is totally random and unpredictable given the small number of contributors. What constitutes a 9/10 is very different for different people. In terms of ratings, how can such varied source material and small sample size be up to the standards of most other official lists? As pointed out before, it’s arguably worse than the FOK list when that hit rock bottom.
DtC's history makes it an institution, and an obvious curiosity for anyone ready to go beyond the core Canon. There is also a complete absence of any true competitors - and the website would without a doubt have room and space for more similar projects, such as 500<400.
But DtC is also not a “true competitor”, because the list ultimately doesn’t represent any meaningful canon, but an abritrary selection of personal favourites that a handful of internet users agree on.
I think the disagree meant is simply how impressive its merits are. I don't see how a decade long tradition, spanning multiple forums, with a simply incredible committed userbase, makes it stick out as a sore thumb. Perhaps in terms of making it one of the most important/interesting lists on the site, but that would be sticking out in a different way than you implied. Like you say this has a basis in 79 users, with a minimum of 8 given their stance on each film, and as you say "To me it looks like a vehicle for highlighting obscure favourites of forum users.", to me these are merits warrenting its inclusion.

Also: "because the list ultimately doesn’t represent any meaningful canon, but an abritrary selection of personal favourites that a handful of internet users agree on."

As far as I'm concerned, that's meaningful.

You reference single user lists, these are never included unless the list stands out in some way, i.e. the maker is a critic, academic, director, etc. Here we are talking about 79 users and a truly interesting legacy. Each list can be argued on its own merits though. I am sure there are many interesting lists that are still not promoted to the userbase. Feel free to make the case for any.

So to repeat the reasons why I believe this lists warrants promotion:

1. Long established legacy
2. Large user-base of cinephiles
3. Highlights obscure favourites
4. Provides a high threshold of quality control (at least 8 having seen and rated each entry)
5. No real competitors
6. Is interesting to a section of the user-base

Note: The rating scale is not based on your ratings, or a standard assessment of quality, it is an assessment of comparative quality, with 3-6/6 representing positions you would argue the film deserves on TSPDT and DtC.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10747
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#4589

Post by St. Gloede » April 23rd, 2020, 6:01 am

mjf314 wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:22 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 11:11 pm
mjf314 wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 10:24 pm


If you want an external viewpoint, you could use TSPDT. There are 56 Russian and Soviet films in the top 2000.
Is there a trimmed version already?

I expect a pretty big diversion.

(It is also unfortunate that neither of the Russian lists are actually ranked. Live Journal's is alphabetical and Russian Guild's is a compilation of two separate lists, there's no specification regarding ranking and the source, nor the additional links, lead to pages that exist ...).
I'm not sure what you mean by a trimmed version, but there's no "Russian films on TSPDT" iCM list if that's what you mean.

Yes, Russian Guild is two separate lists, but each of those 2 lists are ranked.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131020225 ... /null.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20131203055 ... null1.html
Thanks!

These should be added to the lists. The links go to broken "TheAuteurs" pages.

User avatar
fori
Posts: 1330
Joined: Aug 24, 2014
Contact:

#4590

Post by fori » April 23rd, 2020, 6:50 am

St. Gloede wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 6:00 am
I think the disagree meant is simply how impressive its merits are. I don't see how a decade long tradition, spanning multiple forums, with a simply incredible committed userbase, makes it stick out as a sore thumb. Perhaps in terms of making it one of the most important/interesting lists on the site, but that would be sticking out in a different way than you implied. Like you say this has a basis in 79 users, with a minimum of 8 given their stance on each film, and as you say "To me it looks like a vehicle for highlighting obscure favourites of forum users.", to me these are merits warrenting its inclusion.
Mmm this is strange to me. If I got together with 9 buddies and made a list every year for a decade relating to a topic not explored elsewhere, with 8/10 needing to agree on the merits of a film, would that merit inclusion? Who cares how many different forums it’s been on? It’s great that it’s been such a long-running project, but if other standards aren’t met that should have little bearing on whether it should be official. There are multiple projects that have been going on over at Letterboxd for several years with many times higher levels of user participation. And if trying to highlight obscure favorites without a rigorous process is so great, why can’t I have my own official list?
Also: "because the list ultimately doesn’t represent any meaningful canon, but an abritrary selection of personal favourites that a handful of internet users agree on."

As far as I'm concerned, that's meaningful.
Yeah, meaningful to you as a participant. But hardly meeting notability criteria we would demand is this list was produced elsewhere. I’ve spent a lot of time on my list “Memory Mash”. It’s been in existence in one form or another for 6 years, and has numerous films deserving greater critical attention. I’d guess that there are 5 or less ICM users who have even seen half of it. Does that make it a candidate for official status? No. How about my 5th gen project, where I did a lot of research, and have sifted through books, documentaries and online resources (often not in English) to find out about rarities, diligently sought them out (& translated their contents if necessary) and compiled databases of info on them more detailed than IMDb or Douban. I have likely acquired more knowledge about the films of the 5th Generation than anyone else outside of natives of China. And DtC is just a hidden gems list? How many hidden gems lists of films are there on the internet? It’s endless. The are several others that are official already.

You reference single user lists, these are never included unless the list stands out in some way, i.e. the maker is a critic, academic, director, etc. Here we are talking about 79 users and a truly interesting legacy. Each list can be argued on its own merits though. I am sure there are many interesting lists that are still not promoted to the userbase. Feel free to make the case for any.
“Critic, academic, director, etc”
Yes, people of note either in their person or in their work related to the list.
So to repeat the reasons why I believe this lists warrants promotion:

1. Long established legacy Not relevant without meeting other criteria
2. Large user-base of cinephiles Not large actually tiny compared to IMDb’s Indian list or a bunch of Letterboxd lists
3. Highlights obscure favourites Extremely common aspect of user created lists that there are already official lists for
4. Provides a high threshold of quality control (at least 8 having seen and rated each entry) 8 ratings hardly constitutes a high threshold when IMDb has something like 10000 vote minimums. Generally this is the lowest threshold related to any official list
5. No real competitors Doesnt meaningfully achieve it’s stated goal so it isn’t a real competitor either
6. Is interesting to a section of the user-base no denying that, but the mindfuck list is far more popular with users
I’m not suggesting abolishing DtC, but it shouldn’t be an official list in its current form. Things might be different after a major overhaul, but I don’t know what that would look like.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3989
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#4591

Post by Onderhond » April 23rd, 2020, 7:05 am

xianjiro wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 3:37 am
And while my approach to the iCM community is to see it as a big tent - in the sense that we can accommodate many different interests and goals - some things are impossible. We can't make every list official while recommending good lists of hidden gems for people to find. And again, I'm not saying this is anything like what you or anyone else advocates, but there are users who feel "the more the merrier" when it comes to official lists and others who believe there really is "too much of a good thing". Both types, and everyone in between, are members of the community and while we might prefer this or that approach, I don't believe iCM has one over-arching theme.
There is some/lots of variety when you get down to the level of individual users, but the meridian of ICM is plain, archetypical cinephilia (in the narrowest sense of the word). I understand that many consider that a positive thing, but it also excludes many smaller or less well-regarded niches of film fans. It's why I think lists like TSZDT are crucial to a site like ICM. It's a list that can appeal to actual horrorheads. Sadly those kind of lists are the exception, not the rule. Instead we get 100 AFI/BFI/AV this or that, which is just a subsection of 1000 book this or that, Criterion everything and TSPDT and competitors.
xianjiro wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 3:42 am
Onderhond wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 9:17 pm
If any of our lists would be worthy of adding to ICM, it would be the iCM Forum's Favourite Unofficial Checks - Top 1000.
shugs wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 9:26 pm
But that would make them official. :circle: :circle:
Touché!

And thanks for giving me a good chuckle.
I would say that is the beauty of such a list and in fact highlights something that is missing from most of the lists we have now. The touché remark only makes sense if you want to get medals and "work" on lists, but if you really care about exploration and uncovering lesser known gems (ie derive pleasure from the actual films), high variability is actually a big plus, as new films will be highlighted at least every two years (worst case scenario the same 1000 would alternate year after year, but as you can see on the current version, already 100+ films have become official in the meantime).

And of course, with hardly any of such lists present, the ICM community itself becomes more homogenous as people looking for niche inspiration aren't serviced by the site at all. And with those people missing, community feedback itself will point to increasingly more of the same. It's a negative spiral that will only be reinforced further when more ICM projects find their way onto the site.

As for unofficial lists, I will say one thing: ICM (the website) does a terrible job at showcasing/highlighting them. I've been here for 7 or 8 years and have hardly bothered to look at any of them.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10747
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#4592

Post by St. Gloede » April 23rd, 2020, 7:25 am

fori wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 6:50 am
St. Gloede wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 6:00 am
I think the disagree meant is simply how impressive its merits are. I don't see how a decade long tradition, spanning multiple forums, with a simply incredible committed userbase, makes it stick out as a sore thumb. Perhaps in terms of making it one of the most important/interesting lists on the site, but that would be sticking out in a different way than you implied. Like you say this has a basis in 79 users, with a minimum of 8 given their stance on each film, and as you say "To me it looks like a vehicle for highlighting obscure favourites of forum users.", to me these are merits warrenting its inclusion.
Mmm this is strange to me. If I got together with 9 buddies and made a list every year for a decade relating to a topic not explored elsewhere, with 8/10 needing to agree on the merits of a film, would that merit inclusion? Who cares how many different forums it’s been on? It’s great that it’s been such a long-running project, but if other standards aren’t met that should have little bearing on whether it should be official. There are multiple projects that have been going on over at Letterboxd for several years with many times higher levels of user participation. And if trying to highlight obscure favorites without a rigorous process is so great, why can’t I have my own official list?
10 is a low number in terms of overall participation, but if you have the experience/knowledge, etc. it could definitely warrant inclusion.
Also: "because the list ultimately doesn’t represent any meaningful canon, but an abritrary selection of personal favourites that a handful of internet users agree on."

As far as I'm concerned, that's meaningful.
Yeah, meaningful to you as a participant. But hardly meeting notability criteria we would demand is this list was produced elsewhere.
This is actually a fun remark as DtC was made official (as far as I'm aware) long before it was co-moved to the ICM Forum.

I would argue for its inclusion regardless of where it was created.
I’ve spent a lot of time on my list “Memory Mash”. It’s been in existence in one form or another for 6 years, and has numerous films deserving greater critical attention. I’d guess that there are 5 or less ICM users who have even seen half of it. Does that make it a candidate for official status? No. How about my 5th gen project, where I did a lot of research, and have sifted through books, documentaries and online resources (often not in English) to find out about rarities, diligently sought them out (& translated their contents if necessary) and compiled databases of info on them more detailed than IMDb or Douban. I have likely acquired more knowledge about the films of the 5th Generation than anyone else outside of natives of China. And DtC is just a hidden gems list? How many hidden gems lists of films are there on the internet? It’s endless. The are several others that are official already.
This doesn't make sense. You are referring to a list you made, not a long-established and respected list with, in its last update 79 voters (with likely well over 100 participating in the overall list).
You reference single user lists, these are never included unless the list stands out in some way, i.e. the maker is a critic, academic, director, etc. Here we are talking about 79 users and a truly interesting legacy. Each list can be argued on its own merits though. I am sure there are many interesting lists that are still not promoted to the userbase. Feel free to make the case for any.
“Critic, academic, director, etc”
Yes, people of note either in their person or in their work related to the list.
Exactly, and the single person lists you are promoting do not fit the criteria.

That said, there is of course the exception of 366 Weird Movies - it is possible for one individual to create a list generating enough interest to warrant further promotion.
So to repeat the reasons why I believe this lists warrants promotion:

1. Long established legacy Not relevant without meeting other criteria
2. Large user-base of cinephiles Not large actually tiny compared to IMDb’s Indian list or a bunch of Letterboxd lists
3. Highlights obscure favourites Extremely common aspect of user created lists that there are already official lists for
4. Provides a high threshold of quality control (at least 8 having seen and rated each entry) 8 ratings hardly constitutes a high threshold when IMDb has something like 10000 vote minimums. Generally this is the lowest threshold related to any official list
5. No real competitors Doesnt meaningfully achieve it’s stated goal so it isn’t a real competitor either
6. Is interesting to a section of the user-base no denying that, but the mindfuck list is far more popular with users
I’m not suggesting abolishing DtC, but it shouldn’t be an official list in its current form. Things might be different after a major overhaul, but I don’t know what that would look like.
[/quote]

1. What other criteria? It is a community list with a large voter base.
2. Those are different kinds of lists, this is highlighting obscured favourites
3. There is only this and 500<400 as far as I'm aware, and the methodology is very different
4. Can only disagree as this is entirely subjective, you are free to find it too low of course.
5. As far as I'm concerned it does.
6. I don't know the "Mindfuck" list, if it is popular and you believe it warrants additional promotion argue for its inclusion, there are frequent polls were you can submit lists and vote on which gets accepted.

User avatar
cinephage
Donator
Posts: 4007
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Contact:

#4593

Post by cinephage » April 23rd, 2020, 7:29 am

fori wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 6:50 am
I’m not suggesting abolishing DtC, but it shouldn’t be an official list in its current form. Things might be different after a major overhaul, but I don’t know what that would look like.
Promoting making lists unofficial rather than promoting lists you think should become official , especially when a list involves such work and collaboration among people ?

I feel this is a terrible behaviour, demeaning the efforts and work of a fellow forum member to create animation within the cinephile community. The aim of this "make it unofficial" campaigning is to belittle the work of a community ("If I got together with 9 buddies and made a list every year for a decade " nice wording, really) and extinguish the good moments of a cinephile group.

DTC is part of what makes the site and forum a lively place for cinephiles. It is one of the few lists that got me hooked to ICM. The other official lists are similar to many lists found in books or other websites, very easy to find elsewhere. This one is unique, and highly valuable. Furthermore, it gives the chance to share films with other cinephiles and offers one of the best moments on this forum every year, rich with exchange and recommendations.

Hiding behind more or less rational arguments hardly makes this move a rational move. This is an ill-willed, nefarious, suggestion. Whether the motivation for it is pure trolling or an actual lack of human understanding remains to be seen.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3989
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#4594

Post by Onderhond » April 23rd, 2020, 7:45 am

cinephage wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 7:29 am
Promoting making lists unofficial rather than promoting lists you think should become official
Can't speak for fori of course, but it's probably not meant to be demeaning, just a result of there being so "few" places for (new) official lists, which makes people scrutinize the ones that are added.

As for "promoting your own favorite lists" ... #OscarsSoWhite

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31501
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#4595

Post by joachimt » April 23rd, 2020, 7:51 am

Onderhond wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 7:45 am
cinephage wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 7:29 am
Promoting making lists unofficial rather than promoting lists you think should become official
Can't speak for fori of course, but it's probably not meant to be demeaning, just a result of there being so "few" places for (new) official lists, which makes people scrutinize the ones that are added.
But DtC was never added by this forum or by the current group of mods. Marijn also didn't choose it. It has been an official list even from before I joined iCM eight years ago. Maybe if this was a project coming to our attention now, we wouldn't make it official. Who knows? But even if that's true, that doesn't mean we should remove it from official status now. We got to have strong reasons for making things unofficial. Sure, the list has flaws, but as xianjiro pointed out, one's flaw is another's strength. To each his own. If you don't like the list, move on.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
fori
Posts: 1330
Joined: Aug 24, 2014
Contact:

#4596

Post by fori » April 23rd, 2020, 8:00 am

Can’t agree with onderhond more here. I would have no problem with it if the general standards were lighter. But since that’s not the case, I think it should go. My motivation is simply that I wish the lists we select as official would be closer to the “priesthood of curation” standard. Isn’t it a noble goal to hope that the official lists present in some sort of empirical way the canon and other films of great significance? DtC DOES NOT meet those standards. It is an internet project akin to many that take place on Letterboxd. And if making it unofficial really does significantly damage the project, doesn’t that just prove my thesis that the primary driver for engagement with the list is its official status on ICM? And if that’s the case, can we really call it a serious project warranting status among a small set of lists purporting to represent all of cinema? Additionally, this list is not unique, just check out the number of films it shares with personal user lists and the 500<400. The reason I use examples like “9 buddies and me make a list” is that they would meet the same quality standards St. Gloede is arguing for, he even conceded it himself!

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3989
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#4597

Post by Onderhond » April 23rd, 2020, 8:11 am

joachimt wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 7:51 am
If you don't like the list, move on.
Sure, but the underlying critique of some of us is ... where to? The 180 other cinephile-friendly lists?

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31501
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#4598

Post by joachimt » April 23rd, 2020, 8:22 am

Onderhond wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 8:11 am
joachimt wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 7:51 am
If you don't like the list, move on.
Sure, but the underlying critique of some of us is ... where to? The 180 other cinephile-friendly lists?
And again...... suggest some good lists that have a different scope than the regular lists on iCM. We shouldn't be discussing the removal of lists because some people don't agree with them being official. We should be discussing lists that fill gaps on iCM. You always say there are significant gaps and most of the lists rehash the same kind of movies over and over again (and partly I agree with you), but you never offer a solution.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10747
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#4599

Post by St. Gloede » April 23rd, 2020, 8:27 am

fori wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 8:00 am
I would have no problem with it if the general standards were lighter. But since that’s not the case, I think it should go.
What do you mean the standards were lighter?

My motivation is simply that I wish the lists we select as official would be closer to the “priesthood of curation” standard. Isn’t it a noble goal to hope that the official lists present in some sort of empirical way the canon and other films of great significance? DtC DOES NOT meet those standards.

I believe it does, in fact, I believe it is one of the most important list if we are aiming to cover this specific goal.
It is an internet project akin to many that take place on Letterboxd.
Other "internet projects" are official lists, if Letterboxd has something of as much repute or similar to DtC please nominate it/bring it to people's attention.
And if making it unofficial really does significantly damage the project, doesn’t that just prove my thesis that the primary driver for engagement with the list is its official status on ICM?
This is already disproven.

DtC was an official list before it was ever in any way associated with this forum.

It is that well-regarded and respected in the cinephile community.

Having it official is a way to promote it, and give it credit, nothing more, nothing less.
And if that’s the case, can we really call it a serious project warranting status among a small set of lists purporting to represent all of cinema? Additionally, this list is not unique, just check out the number of films it shares with personal user lists and the 500<400.
Yes, it is one of the most impressive projects out there.
The reason I use examples like “9 buddies and me make a list” is that they would meet the same quality standards St. Gloede is arguing for, he even conceded it himself!
This is false.

As noted, the current criteria allow for even personal lists of 1 individual as long as it garners enough respect and interest. If you and your friends were expert at a niche, say you had all seen 500+ Samurai films, and made a comprehensive list, this could be of great value, and could warrant official status - but you and your "buddies" making any random list does not cut it.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3989
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#4600

Post by Onderhond » April 23rd, 2020, 8:27 am

joachimt wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 8:22 am
You always say there are significant gaps and most of the lists rehash the same kind of movies over and over again (and partly I agree with you), but you never offer a solution.
I offered one above.
Onderhond wrote:
April 22nd, 2020, 9:17 pm
If any of our lists would be worthy of adding to ICM, it would be the iCM Forum's Favourite Unofficial Checks - Top 1000.
I also explained why in the current setup, promoting deviant lists isn't of much use.
Onderhond wrote:
April 23rd, 2020, 7:45 am
As for "promoting your own favorite lists" ... #OscarsSoWhite

Post Reply