fori wrote: ↑
April 23rd, 2020, 9:24 am
St. Gloede wrote: ↑
April 23rd, 2020, 8:27 am
What do you mean the standards were lighter?
I see two ideal ways for this to go: one in which we basically allow every list from every publication official list status and abolish official checks. It would be up to the user base (and all interested) to add those lists and propose them for official status, but if they came from any moderately legitimate source e.g. not “movies recommended to jimmy” it could become official. This would include DtC, Cracked.com’s 15 best female horror leads of the 90s and any book published, but not personal toplists. The other way is “priesthood of curation”.
That was not the question though.
You implied the standards were strict, and that DtC falls below some threshold. This is false.
The system you would prefer to see put in place does not reflect the current system, and as such is not too interesting in regard to the question, though it does reflects a very different way of looking at the site.
Personally I don't care what is official in terms of checks, but I realize that many people take official checks quite seriously. I would absolutely be inclined to remove this part of the gamification though (as it has certain negative side effects).
The way lists work at is that official lists, and by extension official checks, is a way to highlight films and put them on people's radar - as such DtC is one of the most important lists as far as I am concerned - but of course usage, views, etc. are different.
What is interesting is how opposed you are to such a popular and respected project being included. If a specific list does not interest you, just ignore it - ICM caters to most tastes/interests - and, to go back to the original statement/question, DtC is well within the current established 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.
Well I strongly disagree, because there’s nothing moderately empirical about using the opinions of 8 random internet users to expand a canon compiled from numerous noteworthy critics, polls, publications and so on. It’s just not even close.
It is empirical in that 8 cinephiles have seen it, and that it pushed the high average rating threshold - meaning that it may be worth consideration (which to me is the most important function of ICM ). Agree to disagree.
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.
”Disproven”. This has nothing to do with my point. If it’s really so respected, it stands to lose nothing from being made unofficial as it will keep chugging along as usual with the same degree of user participation. Of course I know the history of it being on the IMDb boards and wherever else. It’s irrelevant! Currently
(today, not 8 years ago on the IMDb boards), I think the biggest driver (or one of the biggest) of interest in this list is its official status. Prove me wrong! Make it unofficial and keep the tradition. I’ll gladly eat my words on this part of my argument.
I can't prove your random feeling wrong, however, it is quite likely that several participants are not even on iCM - and as evidenced by the specific activity on this forum, i.e. the challenge to watch films that have been nominated, this is clearly irrelevant of ICM checks.
Your overall claim, however, must be conceded - as you were proven to be wrong - the list was adapted long before it was in any way affiliated with this forum. It was not added because of "us".
Yes, it is one of the most impressive projects out there.
Not half as impressive as the film fanatic lists.
Great, if you believe the fanatic lists should be included make their case, vote for these lists in polls, etc. I don't understand what your point is here.
This is false.
10 is a low number in terms of overall participation, but if you have the experience/knowledge, etc. it could definitely warrant inclusion.
You May disagree with the way I phrased it, but this was the point I was making.[/quote]
How? You equated a list of 10 experts passing with 10 random buddies making a list, and you also made an equivocation fallacy of that being the same standard as DtC. A list by 10 people can be considered, absolutely, DtC passes a higher bar.
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.
As I noted, those individuals are remarkable for their work on the list, and usually those lists are ones that have been published in a meaningful way, by a legitimate outlet not solely tied to that list. The film hobbyists involved in DtC can attest to no such accomplishments.
This is just not true. 366 is a personal blog list - and there are plenty of forum lists.
Look I’m not a hater of DtC, I’ve spent more time on it that most participants! I’ve found many favourites of mine through the list, and have generally found the quality of the list to be above average for an ICM list. It is also valuable for showcasing a lot of cult favourites among cinephilia, as well as little known films that definitely do deserve more attention. BUT: it has no place as one of the ~200 lists empirically selected to introduce a broad array of film. I’m getting tired of these endless arguments, and ultimately it doesn’t matter that much to my life if TSPDT gets replaced by Wikipedia’s list of box office bombs. I’m making this case because I genuinely think it would improve the site.
Again, completely disagree.