Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Polls: Musicals (Results), 1952 awards (Dec 21st), 2006 (Dec 23rd), Directors (Dec 31st)
Challenges: Forum Lists, Documentary, Canada
World Cup: Round 2 schedule, Match 2H (Dec 16th), R3 preparation (Dec 30th)
Film of the Week: Lebenszeichen

ICM Forum's 500<400 2018 Nominations Sept 22

500<400, Favourite 1001 movies, Doubling the Canon, Film World Cup and many other votes
Post Reply
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 26953
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: ICM Forum's 500<400 2018 Nominations Sept 22

#441

Post by joachimt » September 24th, 2018, 8:34 am

flaiky wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 9:29 pm
Fergenaprido wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 8:10 pm
World cup definitely has an impact. You can see huge spikes in films featured there.
Were Carriage to Vienna and Muddy Water in the World Cup? I would never have heard of these films without <400.
Muddy River participated in match 1E of the first season of the WC, which was in November 2014. It was already #2 on 500<400 in the September 2014 update. It was #1 in 2015 and 2016 and was beaten by Carriage to Vienna in 2017.

Carriage to Vienna participated in match 1M of the second season of the WC, which was in June 2016. It was already #4 on 500<400 in the September 2015 update. In September 2016 it got to #2 (passing one title and the other got ineligible) and to #1 in 2017.

So both movies were already in the spotlight before they were selected for the WC.

User avatar
nimimerkillinen
Posts: 1738
Joined: Dec 30, 2011
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Contact:

#442

Post by nimimerkillinen » September 24th, 2018, 1:50 pm

sol wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 7:27 am
Ebbywebby wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 6:32 am
sol wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 2:04 am
Are you sure? I discussed this very issue a few weeks ago on another thread and I was given a link to a blog post or something where the 366W people discussed their project coming to an end.
Well, the site recently posted this on Facebook, when asked about the idea of replacing the weaker picks.

"We don't have to replace anything, we can just surpass the artificial 366 limit. After all, movies will continue being made every year for the foreseeable future."
:banana: Awesome news. The 366 Weird list is one of my favourite lists on iCM. Such a diverse range of films from various genres and decades. It's one of only 6 Offical Lists that I rank inside the top 100 users for.
yay, always thought they shouldnt quit at 366, makes the list itself a lot weirder too :P

Nopros
Donator
Posts: 2053
Joined: May 16, 2011
Contact:

#443

Post by Nopros » September 24th, 2018, 7:12 pm

So?..

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 1739
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#444

Post by Ebbywebby » September 24th, 2018, 8:09 pm

Have the lists been downloaded yet? I see The Pornographers (1966) has now hit 400, but I don't know if updating my list will have an effect.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21313
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#445

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » September 24th, 2018, 8:25 pm

I started to download the lists yesterday but stuff came up, will continue (and hopefully finish) in a few hours. I'll remove ineligible films and renumber so it's fine either way. Not sure when I'll start posting results, certainly not tomorrow but sometime this week should be feasible.

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 1739
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#446

Post by Ebbywebby » September 25th, 2018, 1:01 am

If we're stats-ing our lists, here's some data about mine.

films on six official lists: 6
five lists: 7
four lists: 10
three lists: 42
two lists: 48
one list: 77
zero lists: 116

official: 190
unofficial: 116

English language: 180 (some gray area here with multi-language films)
non-English language: 126 (this percentage was lower than I expected)

1910s: 1
1920s: 18
1930s: 5
1940s: 4
1950s: 20
1960s: 89
1970s: 89
1980s: 38
1990s: 14
2000s: 16
2010s: 12
(there are a few reissued/lost films that probably should be filed under 1960s rather than recent times)

I guess this establishes my relative feelings on 30s/40s films and 60s/70s films. And roughly 65/306 of my picks are British, which suggests something about believing this realm doesn't get its deserved love in the ICM world. Really, it'd be even a few more than 65 if I started counting every film featuring a director or star commonly associated with Brit cinema.

Then I had the idea of checking for repetition of some pet names. And these results were pretty interesting to me, because there were certain folks (especially Masumura and Karel Reisz) whom I had no conscious idea were recurring so much.

9 films: Fassbinder
8 films: Yasuzo Masumura
7 films: Oshima
6 films: Ken Russell
5 films: Ingmar Bergman, Peter Greenaway
4 films: Karel Reisz, Robbe-Grillet, Sid Laverents (yeah!), Peter Sellers, Alan Bates
3 films: Robert Altman, Les Blank, Shuji Terayama, Lon Chaney, Fellini, Glenda Jackson, Bill Forsyth, Satyajit Ray, Mike Leigh, Vanessa Redgrave, Wim Wenders, Joseph Losey, John Boulting, Guy Maddin
2 films: Chantal Ackerman, Alan Arkin, Barbet Schroeder, Bill Morrison, Billie Whitelaw, James Broughton, Bryan Forbes, Claude Chabrol, Charles Mingus, Dennis Hopper, Dirk Bogarde, Milos Forman, Herzog, Imamura (and I deleted "The Pornographers" at the last second), Jack Clayton, Jean-Louis Trintignant, Jonathan Miller, Ken Loach, Kevin Brownlow, Lindsay Anderson, Ernst Lubitsch, Dusan Makavejev, Malcolm McDowell, Marcello Mastroianni, Toshio Matsumoto, Max Von Sydow, Oldrich Lipsky, Oliver Reed, Pabst, Pavel Juracek (and I didn't even realize until just now that they're ranked consecutively), Pink Floyd, Robert Downey Sr., Rolling Stones, Raoul Ruiz, John Schlesinger, Stephen Frears, Tod Browning, Tony Richardson, Peter Tscherkassky, Koji Wakamatsu, William Klein, Yoshishige Yoshida, Karel Zeman

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 720
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#447

Post by cinewest » September 25th, 2018, 1:14 pm

Finding some of the viewer stats interesting, so I thought I would participate. Out of 200 films listed:

2010's: 24
2000's: 75 (many, many very good films have been overlooked from the 2000's)
1990's: 36
1980's: 31
1970's: 19
1960's: 12
1950's: 2
1940's: 1

*There is a strong bias towards the later years for several reasons. Most of the very good older films have hit the 400 plateau, or I haven't seen them (or don't remember them well enough). I do recall that last year's community list prompted me to ad many Japanese, French and East European films to my "see" list.

*There is also a strong bias towards films made in a language other than English (because many more of them have been neglected): 147 in a language other than English.

*There are 43 in English (quite a few of them documentaries), and 10 in mixed languages, including English.
French is represented by 25 films, plus 5 in mixed languages, including French.
Spanish: 21, plus 3 mixed language
Portuguese: 13, plus 4 mixed language
Italian: 11, plus 3 mixed
Russian: 10, plus 1 mixed.

I also have various filmmakers represented by more than 1 film, but none by too many.
Last edited by cinewest on September 25th, 2018, 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bjornam
Posts: 387
Joined: Jun 02, 2011
Contact:

#448

Post by bjornam » September 25th, 2018, 1:53 pm

Image
Presented like this, my love for 60s and 70s cinema is very obvious... at least it seems I'm not the only one

User avatar
Mate_cosido
Posts: 566
Joined: Apr 28, 2016
Contact:

#449

Post by Mate_cosido » September 25th, 2018, 2:37 pm

I made my stats a couple days ago and forgot to post them
Total movies: 322Show
Countries and regions

Japan - 64
China - 28
Hong Kong - 25
Korea - 21
Taiwan - 14
Soviet Union - 14
United Kingdom - 13
France - 13
Italy - 13
USA - 11
Spain - 10

Latin America - 25
South-East Asia - 10
Rest of Asia - 7
Rest of Europe - 29
Africa - 9
Oceania - 6
(this doesn't adds up to 322, i'm not good at maths)

i have to watch more latin american and north american movies

Decades

1920s - 9
1930s - 15
1940s - 9
1950s - 28
1960s - 56
1970s - 52
1980s - 58
1990s - 51
2000s - 29
2010s - 15

i wasn't expecting the 80s to be the decade with more movies

Official lists

6+ - 11
5 - 17
4 - 17
3 - 51
2 - 62
1 - 74
0 - 90

Checks

300s - 41
200s - 52
100s - 82
50-100 - 56
1-50 - 91

User avatar
XxXApathy420XxX
Donator
Posts: 18281
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#450

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » September 25th, 2018, 3:17 pm

Here's some of my stats

1900s = 1
1910s = 12
1920s = 44
1930s = 34
1940s = 21
1950s = 36
1960s = 87
1970s = 86
1980s = 79
1990s = 70
2000s = 47
2010s = 41

>= 400 checks: 2 (did this list on imdb when thread was first made)
< 400 = 556
< 300 = 514
< 200 = 432
< 100 = 293
< 50 = 179
< 25 = 108
< 10 = 33
< 5 = 6

User avatar
Caracortada
Posts: 554
Joined: Nov 21, 2014
Contact:

#451

Post by Caracortada » September 25th, 2018, 4:17 pm

My decades:

1910s = 03
1920s = 05
1930s = 21
1940s = 09
1950s = 18
1960s = 13
1970s = 10
1980s = 21
1990s = 12
2000s = 25
2010s = 24

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 1739
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#452

Post by Ebbywebby » September 25th, 2018, 5:29 pm

Theoretical question, which perhaps has been asked before: What do you think would happen if the ICM site shared a general blog post asking for <400 ballots and this became a "500<400" list rather than an "ICM Forum's 500<400" list? Would the list be ruined, or would the bans on TV episodes and movies of the past two years weed out the bulk of stupid nominations?

I'm trying to imagine what <400 movies a mainstream film fan would "naively" enjoy. That small slice of the spectrum is hard to define. Popular-ish without being popular.

Part of me enjoys being one of the 127 elite voters, and part of me is dubious about the small population sample.

AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12285
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#453

Post by AdamH » September 25th, 2018, 5:37 pm

Definitely not in favour of it going to a blog post because they would obviously move the voting over to the official site instead of here and we lose it.

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7031
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#454

Post by Gershwin » September 25th, 2018, 5:46 pm

Ebbywebby wrote:
September 25th, 2018, 5:29 pm
Theoretical question, which perhaps has been asked before: What do you think would happen if the ICM site shared a general blog post asking for <400 ballots and this became a "500<400" list rather than an "ICM Forum's 500<400" list? Would the list be ruined, or would the bans on TV episodes and movies of the past two years weed out the bulk of stupid nominations?

I'm trying to imagine what <400 movies a mainstream film fan would "naively" enjoy. That small slice of the spectrum is hard to define. Popular-ish without being popular.

Part of me enjoys being one of the 127 elite voters, and part of me is dubious about the small population sample.
It would be a terrible list. I don't even want to think about it.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
monclivie
Posts: 257
Joined: Sep 13, 2011
Location: Poland
Contact:

#455

Post by monclivie » September 25th, 2018, 7:37 pm

Ebbywebby wrote:
September 25th, 2018, 5:29 pm
Theoretical question, which perhaps has been asked before: What do you think would happen if the ICM site shared a general blog post asking for <400 ballots and this became a "500<400" list rather than an "ICM Forum's 500<400" list? Would the list be ruined, or would the bans on TV episodes and movies of the past two years weed out the bulk of stupid nominations?

I'm trying to imagine what <400 movies a mainstream film fan would "naively" enjoy. That small slice of the spectrum is hard to define. Popular-ish without being popular.

Part of me enjoys being one of the 127 elite voters, and part of me is dubious about the small population sample.
Most of those really mainstream users would have about ten movies on their list, probably mostly some obscure movies from their country, because except a few they have randomly seen somewehere, they just don't watch anything eligible. Just check how many <400 movies have checked average checker of Jupiter Ascending etc.

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 1739
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#456

Post by Ebbywebby » September 25th, 2018, 7:51 pm

I agree that their lists would have only 10 or so films....would that necessarily be bad? Maybe this would just leave more room on the list for our weirdo picks.

Maybe they'd all be picking 2016 popcorn movies that are just old enough to be eligible but new enough to have not accumulated many checks.

I dunno...just musing.

72allinncallme
Donator
Posts: 1848
Joined: Nov 13, 2016
Contact:

#457

Post by 72allinncallme » September 25th, 2018, 8:15 pm

Number of checks on my list:

0-10: 7
11-25: 7
26-50: 10
51-100: 29
101-200: 68
201-300: 70
301-399: 63
400-: 1
Réalité with 400 checks.

AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12285
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#458

Post by AdamH » September 25th, 2018, 8:21 pm

Ebbywebby wrote:
September 25th, 2018, 7:51 pm
I agree that their lists would have only 10 or so films....would that necessarily be bad? Maybe this would just leave more room on the list for our weirdo picks.

Maybe they'd all be picking 2016 popcorn movies that are just old enough to be eligible but new enough to have not accumulated many checks.

I dunno...just musing.
Regardless of how the list turned out, I think it would lose its current identity which would be a real shame. Not that sure how many people would take part either anyway. More than now certainly but doubt there would suddenly be thousands of voters.

blocho
Donator
Posts: 1265
Joined: Jul 20, 2014
Contact:

#459

Post by blocho » September 25th, 2018, 8:46 pm

Malpertuis is gonzo awesome
Ebbywebby wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 7:35 am
sol wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 7:27 am
Awesome news. The 366 Weird list is one of my favourite lists on iCM. Such a diverse range of films from various genres and decades. It's one of only 6 Offical Lists that I rank inside the top 100 users for.
I love this list too. I broke into the top 25 in recent times, but I still have 65 or 66 films left and most of them sound worth seeing. Particularly interested in getting to Thundercrack!, L'inhumaine and Malpertuis.

blocho
Donator
Posts: 1265
Joined: Jul 20, 2014
Contact:

#460

Post by blocho » September 25th, 2018, 8:50 pm

72allinncallme wrote:
September 21st, 2018, 3:32 pm
Mario Gaborović wrote:
September 21st, 2018, 2:06 pm
Of course I'd like to see that list of everyone's #1 to be updated as well. :party:
Huh? Do you mean the list I made? I have been updating that list several times a day. It was only missing ororama’s #1 when you posted that. And blocho’s. His list is set to private/friends only. (If I made a mistake or missed a persons list, let me know)

If you change your number one to another movie there is a chance I might not catch it though. :)
Whoa, that's not good. I don't know why my list is inaccessible, but here's links to the imdb and icm versions (they're the same):
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/dashleft400/blocho/
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls074640894/

Again, my list is unranked

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21313
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#461

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » September 25th, 2018, 10:19 pm

AdamH wrote:
September 25th, 2018, 8:21 pm
Ebbywebby wrote:
September 25th, 2018, 7:51 pm
I agree that their lists would have only 10 or so films....would that necessarily be bad? Maybe this would just leave more room on the list for our weirdo picks.

Maybe they'd all be picking 2016 popcorn movies that are just old enough to be eligible but new enough to have not accumulated many checks.

I dunno...just musing.
Regardless of how the list turned out, I think it would lose its current identity which would be a real shame. Not that sure how many people would take part either anyway. More than now certainly but doubt there would suddenly be thousands of voters.
It's a hypothetical, not a proposal. Assume it happened and people participated. As others have mentioned I don't think the types of films would be much different, we already have niche genre films (horror). There'd be a bit more of that, maybe a the skew would be a bit more recent overall, but 400 check limit would weed out the mainstream stuff.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 10811
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#462

Post by mjf314 » September 26th, 2018, 12:34 am

Ebbywebby wrote:
September 25th, 2018, 5:29 pm
Theoretical question, which perhaps has been asked before: What do you think would happen if the ICM site shared a general blog post asking for <400 ballots and this became a "500<400" list rather than an "ICM Forum's 500<400" list?
I'm not sure if such a poll would have a point, because the list could be generated automatically from iCM data.
All except José e Pilar are on the 500<400 list.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21313
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#463

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » September 26th, 2018, 12:41 am

Well, the ranking of the lists and inclusion of people who don't favourite films or favourite restrictively would certainly change things quite a bit from that, but it does give a glimpse that the general tenor of the list wouldn't change.

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 4484
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#464

Post by sol » September 26th, 2018, 12:44 am

Is the population here really that much smaller than Reddit, FOK! or FilmTotaal? As the online community who does the most by far to promote and support iCM, I think we kind of deserve to have a list that represents our tastes. And it's a far more interesting list than those generic top 100/250 lists.

Also, I think 127 is quite a large sample size. Just comparing to another Official List, the Yle Finnish list is compiled from only a mere 48 ballots and contains numerous films with only one vote. Our list is made up of twice as many ballots as it is and - IIRC - we have progressed to the point where every film in our list features at least four votes.

Most of all though, by having a really cool project like 500<400 exclusively run here (DTC did not originate here and is partially run on SCFZ too), we have a great motivator for likeminded individuals to sign up to the forum and become part of our online community.

I'm with Adam on this all the way.
Former IMDb message boards user /// iCM | IMDb | My Top 500+ Favourite Films /// Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 28951
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#465

Post by mightysparks » September 26th, 2018, 12:59 am

This list started as a forum list so I think it’s essential it remains one. However, I’d be interested in a site wide one too because I think we’d have less ‘mafia’ films on it and it would probably have less ‘weirdo’ picks as ebby said and be a more even spread.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 720
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#466

Post by cinewest » September 26th, 2018, 3:07 am

Ebbywebby wrote:
September 25th, 2018, 5:29 pm
Theoretical question, which perhaps has been asked before: What do you think would happen if the ICM site shared a general blog post asking for <400 ballots and this became a "500<400" list rather than an "ICM Forum's 500<400" list? Would the list be ruined, or would the bans on TV episodes and movies of the past two years weed out the bulk of stupid nominations?

I'm trying to imagine what <400 movies a mainstream film fan would "naively" enjoy. That small slice of the spectrum is hard to define. Popular-ish without being popular.

Part of me enjoys being one of the 127 elite voters, and part of me is dubious about the small population sample.
It's not that difficult to imagine what a list like that would look like. Just consider the nature of "popular" movies, or in this case, popular "unsung" movies among a more mainstream audience:

If your intention is to eliminate more movies not made in English, and older (Black and White) movies (unless they have a small cultish following), then I'm sure you would get your wish.

Better yet, just take a look at your own list (or the community list), and imagine what would be "popular" with a more mainstream audience, and you can get a pretty good picture. Add to that more mainstream movies that never took off in a big way, but are readily available, and you can substitute them in for the more obscure and less mainstream movies on the community list. Net gain- a more mediocre (and less original), but more "popular" more genre based list, which would no doubt appeal to folks here whose taste leans more in that direction.
Last edited by cinewest on September 26th, 2018, 4:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 720
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#467

Post by cinewest » September 26th, 2018, 3:12 am

mjf314 wrote:
September 26th, 2018, 12:34 am
Ebbywebby wrote:
September 25th, 2018, 5:29 pm
Theoretical question, which perhaps has been asked before: What do you think would happen if the ICM site shared a general blog post asking for <400 ballots and this became a "500<400" list rather than an "ICM Forum's 500<400" list?
I'm not sure if such a poll would have a point, because the list could be generated automatically from iCM data.
All except José e Pilar are on the 500<400 list.
This list, generated from films that have been favorited on icheck has been created in a manner different than what Ebbywebby is suggesting, which I believe would yield a very different result, albeit one that is of no interest to me.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 2670
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#468

Post by OldAle1 » September 26th, 2018, 4:31 am

cinewest wrote:
September 26th, 2018, 3:07 am
Ebbywebby wrote:
September 25th, 2018, 5:29 pm
Theoretical question, which perhaps has been asked before: What do you think would happen if the ICM site shared a general blog post asking for <400 ballots and this became a "500<400" list rather than an "ICM Forum's 500<400" list? Would the list be ruined, or would the bans on TV episodes and movies of the past two years weed out the bulk of stupid nominations?

I'm trying to imagine what <400 movies a mainstream film fan would "naively" enjoy. That small slice of the spectrum is hard to define. Popular-ish without being popular.

Part of me enjoys being one of the 127 elite voters, and part of me is dubious about the small population sample.
It's not that difficult to imagine what a list like that would look like. Just consider the nature of "popular" movies, or in this case, popular "unsung" movies among a more mainstream audience:

If your intention is to eliminate more movies not made in English, and older (Black and White) movies (unless they have a small cultish following), then I'm sure you would get your wish.

Better yet, just take a look at your own list (or the community list), and imagine what would be "popular" with a more mainstream audience, and you can get a pretty good picture. Add to that more mainstream movies that never took off in a big way, but are readily available, and you can substitute them in for the more obscure and less mainstream movies on the community list. Net gain- a more mediocre (and less original), but more "popular" more genre based list, which would no doubt appeal to folks here whose taste leans more in that direction.
Good points, except that the kinds of movies you're theorizing that a more mainstream audience would go for would virtually all have over 400 checks and thus be ineligible. I don't see as many new films as a lot of people so others can probably come up with some better examples but for instance one of the most "obscure" recent American films I've seen is Certain Women which grossed just $1 million at the US box office, less than that worldwide, got good but not spectacular reviews, and non Oscar noms. Not a film that's going to get seen an enormous amount is it? But it has 852 checks.

Keep in mind that films from the current and last years are not eligible - these "smaller" English-language films do sometimes take a while to hit 400 checks, but usually they're going to within a couple of years. I think you'd really have to look at films before the 90s to find stuff that's at all "mainstream" or got significant releases that would still be below 400 checks - because a lot of the younger folks don't see "old" movies. So yes, it might end up being a more anglo-centric list, but the films that would pop onto it that aren't on our list would I suspect mostly be half-forgotten films from the 60s-80s that never really hit any kind of real popularity.

I tend to agree that it would be a less interesting list - to me, anyway - in part because it would probably have less "arthouse" stuff. But it might well end up having a pretty interesting mix of stuff in it's own right, it's just really hard to tell and frankly I don't know what the taste of the "average" icheckmovies user is. Maybe it would just be all Indian and Turkish flicks. :lol:

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7031
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#469

Post by Gershwin » September 26th, 2018, 6:39 am

You guys seem to forget all the extremely mediocre straight-to-Netflix rom-coms people tend to watch, that haven't hit 400 yet and probably never will. Imagine having 100 of those on your list ...
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 1739
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#470

Post by Ebbywebby » September 26th, 2018, 7:48 am

Ebbywebby wrote:
September 25th, 2018, 7:51 pm
Maybe they'd all be picking 2016 popcorn movies that are just old enough to be eligible but new enough to have not accumulated many checks.
Bad Santa 2, Fifty Shades of Black, Absolutely Fabulous: The Movie, Friend Request, Sharknado 4: The 4th Awakens? :)

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 990
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#471

Post by matthewscott8 » September 26th, 2018, 9:21 am

nimimerkillinen wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 1:50 pm
sol wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 7:27 am
Ebbywebby wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 6:32 am


Well, the site recently posted this on Facebook, when asked about the idea of replacing the weaker picks.

"We don't have to replace anything, we can just surpass the artificial 366 limit. After all, movies will continue being made every year for the foreseeable future."
:banana: Awesome news. The 366 Weird list is one of my favourite lists on iCM. Such a diverse range of films from various genres and decades. It's one of only 6 Offical Lists that I rank inside the top 100 users for.
yay, always thought they shouldnt quit at 366, makes the list itself a lot weirder too :P
I kinda like it, meant to be days in a leap year I guess?

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10279
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#472

Post by funkybusiness » September 26th, 2018, 9:42 am

matthewscott8 wrote:
September 26th, 2018, 9:21 am
nimimerkillinen wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 1:50 pm
sol wrote:
September 24th, 2018, 7:27 am
:banana: Awesome news. The 366 Weird list is one of my favourite lists on iCM. Such a diverse range of films from various genres and decades. It's one of only 6 Offical Lists that I rank inside the top 100 users for.
yay, always thought they shouldnt quit at 366, makes the list itself a lot weirder too :P
I kinda like it, meant to be days in a leap year I guess?
yep.
but I would suggest there's nothing stopping them from making a list for another year.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 5718
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#473

Post by xianjiro » September 26th, 2018, 10:05 am

Ebbywebby wrote:
September 25th, 2018, 5:29 pm

Part of me enjoys being one of the 127 elite voters, and part of me is dubious about the small population sample.
127 doesn't strike me as a necessarily bad sample - problem is, how big is the actual population set we're sampling? :shrug:

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

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 720
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#474

Post by cinewest » September 26th, 2018, 11:15 am

Gershwin wrote:
September 26th, 2018, 6:39 am
You guys seem to forget all the extremely mediocre straight-to-Netflix rom-coms people tend to watch, that haven't hit 400 yet and probably never will. Imagine having 100 of those on your list ...
Exactly. For me, this list is one of the most interesting in the forum precisely because it is as eclectic as it is, and calls my attention to so much I am not already familiar with in some way, shape, or form.

Diminish that possibility, and I will just become as cranky as I have been regarding some of the other lists that have been generated on the forum, and probably lose much of the interest I have in coming here and participating.

There are probably quite a few here that would like to see me disappear... just make the content more typical and uninspiring, and you'll get your wish.

Long live 500<400 in all its investigative, exploratory wonder!
Last edited by cinewest on September 26th, 2018, 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7031
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#475

Post by Gershwin » September 26th, 2018, 11:47 am

cinewest wrote:
September 26th, 2018, 11:15 am
There are probably quite a few here that would like to see me disappear... just make the content more tupical and uninspiringh, and you'll get your wish.
:huh:
I don't think so. Some people might think you're a snob, but that doesn't mean they automatically want you to disappear as well. :lol:
Anyhow, I dig your taste, so I'd hate to see you go. Don't let anyone push you out of here.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 720
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#476

Post by cinewest » September 26th, 2018, 12:44 pm

Gershwin wrote:
September 26th, 2018, 11:47 am
cinewest wrote:
September 26th, 2018, 11:15 am
There are probably quite a few here that would like to see me disappear... just make the content more tupical and uninspiringh, and you'll get your wish.
:huh:
I don't think so. Some people might think you're a snob, but that doesn't mean they automatically want you to disappear as well. :lol:
Anyhow, I dig your taste, so I'd hate to see you go. Don't let anyone push you out of here.
You're one of the folks here whose taste I most connect with, so I always look forward to your posts.

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 720
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#477

Post by cinewest » September 26th, 2018, 12:58 pm

@OldAle
You wrote:

Good points, except that the kinds of movies you're theorizing that a more mainstream audience would go for would virtually all have over 400 checks and thus be ineligible. I don't see as many new films as a lot of people so others can probably come up with some better examples but for instance one of the most "obscure" recent American films I've seen is Certain Women which grossed just $1 million at the US box office, less than that worldwide, got good but not spectacular reviews, and non Oscar noms. Not a film that's going to get seen an enormous amount is it? But it has 852 checks.

Keep in mind that films from the current and last years are not eligible - these "smaller" English-language films do sometimes take a while to hit 400 checks, but usually they're going to within a couple of years. I think you'd really have to look at films before the 90s to find stuff that's at all "mainstream" or got significant releases that would still be below 400 checks - because a lot of the younger folks don't see "old" movies. So yes, it might end up being a more anglo-centric list, but the films that would pop onto it that aren't on our list would I suspect mostly be half-forgotten films from the 60s-80s that never really hit any kind of real popularity.

I tend to agree that it would be a less interesting list - to me, anyway - in part because it would probably have less "arthouse" stuff. But it might well end up having a pretty interesting mix of stuff in it's own right, it's just really hard to tell and frankly I don't know what the taste of the "average" icheckmovies user is. Maybe it would just be all Indian and Turkish flicks. :lol:

Regarding paragraph 1: Yes, a lot of mainstream movies have more than 400 checks, but you may be surprised how many don't (something Gershwin alluded to in his response).

Regarding paragraph 2: Yes, it's much easier to find "mainstream movies" with less than 400 checks before 1990. I have noticed some correlation between imdb votes and checks on icheckmovies, at least when it comes to the mist popular titles, but there seems to be disconnect when it comes to less popular movies, and I have films on my 500<400 list with as many as 8,500 votes and as few as 43, which is a pretty wide spread. Any ideas about this?

Regarding paragraph 3: You mean there may be a cadre Bollywood aficionados on icheckmovies? :-)

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7042
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#478

Post by Lonewolf2003 » September 26th, 2018, 1:10 pm

Gershwin wrote:
September 26th, 2018, 6:39 am
You guys seem to forget all the extremely mediocre straight-to-Netflix rom-coms people tend to watch, that haven't hit 400 yet and probably never will. Imagine having 100 of those on your list ...
Those people generally don’t participate in polls like this, even if there was a blog post on a popular site/social media. Too much hassle for them. Also the votes would still be scattered.
Because of the 400 check limit, the 2 years treshold and the scattering of votes I thinks the impact would be little.

User avatar
XxXApathy420XxX
Donator
Posts: 18281
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#479

Post by XxXApathy420XxX » September 26th, 2018, 1:38 pm

Gershwin wrote:
September 26th, 2018, 11:47 am
cinewest wrote:
September 26th, 2018, 11:15 am
There are probably quite a few here that would like to see me disappear... just make the content more tupical and uninspiringh, and you'll get your wish.
:huh:
I don't think so. Some people might think you're a snob, but that doesn't mean they automatically want you to disappear as well. :lol:
Anyhow, I dig your taste, so I'd hate to see you go. Don't let anyone push you out of here.
+1. Enjoy going through your lists as well. Actually, same for both of you.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 2670
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#480

Post by OldAle1 » September 26th, 2018, 2:05 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
September 26th, 2018, 1:10 pm
Gershwin wrote:
September 26th, 2018, 6:39 am
You guys seem to forget all the extremely mediocre straight-to-Netflix rom-coms people tend to watch, that haven't hit 400 yet and probably never will. Imagine having 100 of those on your list ...
Those people generally don’t participate in polls like this, even if there was a blog post on a popular site/social media. Too much hassle for them. Also the votes would still be scattered.
Because of the 400 check limit, the 2 years treshold and the scattering of votes I thinks the impact would be little.
Yeah this is a good point too. I'm sure we all know lots of people who may watch a fair number of films - may even log them on icheckmovies/letterboxed/imdb etc, but don't care about going any further with it. Lots of the people on the imdb forums were like that for sure - they might participate in a poll where they were just going to list a few favorites, i.e. yearly polls or "favorite superhero films" or something like that where there were restrictions and they only had to look at a list of 50 or 100 films to make their choices - but something like 500<400 requires significantly more effort. Most of the people I knew on IMDb did log their viewings, but never made any large lists and don't seem like they would have participated in anything taking a fair amount of time to create.

We''re the exceptions here.

Post Reply