Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
ICMForum's Favourite Movies 2019 Edition (Nominations: Midnight Saturday Mar 23rd)
Polls: Academy Awards (Mar 22nd), 1921 awards (Apr 3rd), Children (Apr 7th), 1932 (Apr 14th), DtC Voting (Apr 25th)
Challenges: French, War, Female Directors
World Cup: Deadline for monty and filmbantha (Mar 30th)
Film of the Week: Una pura formalità

Which subjects would you like to see polls about in 2019?

500<400, Favourite 1001 movies, Doubling the Canon, Film World Cup and many other votes

Which subjects would you like to see polls about in 2019?

Poll ended at December 9th, 2018, 3:45 pm

Joyous/happy
5
2%
Disturbing
7
3%
Coming-of-age
9
4%
History/period
5
2%
Biopics
5
2%
Fantasy
11
4%
Gangster
4
2%
Prison
9
4%
Romcom
2
1%
Romance
7
3%
Spy
2
1%
Erotic
8
3%
Music
3
1%
Dance
1
0%
Mini-series
7
3%
Directed by Women
23
9%
African American Cinema
10
4%
Pre-Code films
5
2%
Underrated movies (exact criteria we can fine tune later)
13
5%
Benelux
11
4%
Eastern Europe (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine )
4
2%
Central Asia & Caucasus (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia)
4
2%
South Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka)
8
3%
Horror (Repeat, previous editions held in 2012, '13, '14, '15, '16, 17, '18)
5
2%
Noirs (Repeat, previous edition held in 2015)
8
3%
Depressing (Repeat, previous edition held in 2015)
5
2%
Shorts (Repeat, previous editions held in 2013, '14, '15, '16)
13
5%
Animation (Repeat, previous editions held in 2012, '14)
15
6%
Silents (Repeat, previous edition held in 2014)
10
4%
Documentaries (Repeat, previous edition held in 2015)
14
6%
TV Series (Repeat, previous edition held in 2015)
8
3%
Italian (Repeat, previous edition held in 2015)
7
3%
Christmas (Repeat, previous edition held in 2012)
5
2%
 
Total votes: 253

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7281
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

Which subjects would you like to see polls about in 2019?

#1

Post by Lonewolf2003 » November 18th, 2018, 3:45 pm

Like the poll says above, this thread is to vote which subject we will do our monthly polls about in 2019. When voting it is important to keep in mind if you think you yourself can submit a decent list for that subject and/or you think we as a community can make an interesting and decent list about it.

Next year we will start doing the decade polls again. Most probably starting with the 1930s and the 1940s. Unless the Silent poll is chosen here above, than we'll probably do SIlent and 1930s only. But keep in mind we did the 1920s recently yet at the end of 2017.

In this topic I gathered all the option to do polls about in 2019. In that topic it was decided that the On 0 zero list won't be annual, but will be held in 2020 again (and might become bi-annual after that). It was also decided that Horror loses it status of being an annual poll.


Here you can find an overview of all the polls held the last two years. And here a list of all our polls.


Here is the draft schedule:
Concept schedule
JanuaryDocumentaries (repeat)
FebruaryFantasy
MarchiCM Forum's 1001 Favourite Films (annual)
AprilDirected by Women
May1930s
JuneiCM Forum's Favourite Movies of the 2010s (annual)
(Actor/Actrices)
JulyAnimation (Repeat)
AugustBenelux
SeptemberiCM Forum's 500<400 (annual)
October1940s
NovemberShorts (Repeat)
DecemberUnderrated movies
Directors
TBD 2020On 0 Lists
Last edited by Lonewolf2003 on December 20th, 2018, 4:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7281
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#2

Post by Lonewolf2003 » December 4th, 2018, 10:50 am

There is still a few more days to vote for this, if you hadn't already ;)

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 4766
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#3

Post by albajos » December 4th, 2018, 11:14 am

we need 7 polls?

So the cut off is 10 + one at 9, right now?

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7281
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#4

Post by Lonewolf2003 » December 4th, 2018, 3:58 pm

Yes there are 7 more spots to give.

User avatar
Lakigigar
Posts: 1095
Joined: Oct 31, 2015
Location: Belgium
Contact:

#5

Post by Lakigigar » December 4th, 2018, 6:04 pm

Come on, vote for Benelux. We have a challenge next year on Benelux as well! And there are no other country lists up otherwise.

User avatar
flaiky
Posts: 1194
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: London UK
Contact:

#6

Post by flaiky » December 4th, 2018, 6:37 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
December 4th, 2018, 3:58 pm
Yes there are 7 more spots to give.
This year has had 15 polls, next year is scheduled for 14...any chance we could stick with the same number and allow 8 spots?
Let the ashes fly
ICM | Letterboxd | All-time stats

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3343
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#7

Post by tommy_leazaq » December 4th, 2018, 7:41 pm

Given the rise in popularity of Netflix and the likes, guess we might need a repeat of TV series poll.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2343
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#8

Post by Onderhond » December 4th, 2018, 7:43 pm

It's bad enough we're apparently dropping a poll option, wasting a spot on TV stuff would hurt twice!

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7281
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#9

Post by Lonewolf2003 » December 4th, 2018, 10:06 pm

The spot loss is because horror isn't annual anymore. Because that was annual, there were two polls in October. I think without horror it’s preferable to do just one, like every other month.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7281
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#10

Post by Lonewolf2003 » December 9th, 2018, 8:57 pm

Poll is now closed.

The 7 with the highest votes are:
Directed by Women: 23
Animation (Repeat): 15
Documentaries (Repeat): 14
Shorts (Repeat): 13
Underrated movies: 13
Benelux: 11
Fantasy: 11
Which I think is a nice mixture.

I'm thinking of scheduling Underrated directly at the start of the year. So the organizer of that can start the discussions about the criteria to use for it (or not to use any). I myself don't feel like organizing that one. If interest wanes because of disagreement about those criteria, we could if necessary replace it with African American Cinema or Silents.
For the rest of the schedule I looked at the Challenge schedule.

Here is the new draft schedule:
Concept schedule
JanuaryUnderrated movies
FebruaryFantasy
MarchiCM Forum's 1001 Favourite Films (annual)
AprilDirected by Women
May1930s
JuneiCM Forum's Favourite Movies of the 2010s (annual)
(Actor/Actrices)
JulyAnimation (Repeat)
AugustBenelux
SeptemberiCM Forum's 500<400 (annual)
October1940s
NovemberShorts (Repeat)
DecemberDirectors
Documentaries (repeat)
January 2020On 0 Lists


Biggest downside of this schedule I see is that the new polls are focused in the first half of the year and the last half is completely only polls we done before. So maybe change Underrated to another month after all? I would like to keep Benelux, Directed by Women and Fantasy were they are, because there are challenge about those in the preceding month.

Any thoughts?

And, I was pretty surprised that Directed by Women came out as such a clear winner. Didn't know that was in such demand.

User avatar
flaiky
Posts: 1194
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: London UK
Contact:

#11

Post by flaiky » December 9th, 2018, 10:03 pm

(Minor complaining ahead) I voted for 3/7 of the winners but I'm a little disappointed with the othehrs. Fantasy and Shorts, especially, would have been pretty near the bottom for me. I don't even know how to go about making a fantasy list, it always seems like a poorly defined genre..you only need to see the ICM official list for some bizarre inclusions (Pretty Women??) Ah well. I'm really intrigued to see the Women Directors poll, at least that made it.

How about moving Documentaries to January, so it comes right after the current challenge? Then I guess Underrated can be scheduled for December but I agree it is worth checking first that there is a criteria that works. How about something like 'rated under 7 on IMDB but not included on either TSPDT list'? :shrug:
Let the ashes fly
ICM | Letterboxd | All-time stats

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3157
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#12

Post by OldAle1 » December 9th, 2018, 10:17 pm

Agree about fantasy - the least-easily-definable of all genres to me. And I LOVE fantasies of many kinds - Tolkienesque "high fantasy" or "epic fantasy", Conan and barbarian fantasy, afterlife fantasies, surrealist fantasy, etc, etc - but it doesn't all seem to belong together to me. I just can't justify putting a Raoul Ruiz film on the same list as The Neverending Story, frankly. So I may not bother with that poll though I'm interested in what other folks think is or isn't fantasy.

I'd put the rating average for underrated lower than 7 - make it 6 maybe - because I suspect it will overlap a helluva lot with DTC, 0 Official Lists, and 500<400 otherwise. Or maybe just under 7 and not on those lists as well? I dunno, it does seem hard to figure out the criteria, there are plenty of films that have high IMDb ratings that I think are underrated also, a rating on that site doesn't really mean all that much after all.

User avatar
rnilsson19
Posts: 502
Joined: Dec 01, 2016
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#13

Post by rnilsson19 » December 9th, 2018, 10:20 pm

+2 about fantasy.

I think the criteria for Underrated movies should have been decided before even putting it in the poll, seems fuzzy and will probably end up pretty similar to various other polls. I'd support a switch with African American Cinema.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7281
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#14

Post by Lonewolf2003 » December 10th, 2018, 12:46 pm

I agree that Fantasy can be a weird broad defined genre. It's up to the organizer of that poll to either set define the genre or let the voters decide for themselves (which will probably lead to a lot of discussion in the results)

For underrated maybe: rated under 7 on IMDB and not included on the TSPDT list, S&S list or our own 1001 Favourite Movies list?

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1737
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#15

Post by beavis » December 10th, 2018, 2:08 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
December 10th, 2018, 12:46 pm
For underrated maybe: rated under 7 on IMDB and not included on the TSPDT list, S&S list or our own 1001 Favourite Movies list?
I would also include a >400 checks rule, to make it less hidden gem and more truly underrated

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7281
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#16

Post by Lonewolf2003 » December 10th, 2018, 2:46 pm

beavis wrote:
December 10th, 2018, 2:08 pm
Lonewolf2003 wrote:
December 10th, 2018, 12:46 pm
For underrated maybe: rated under 7 on IMDB and not included on the TSPDT list, S&S list or our own 1001 Favourite Movies list?
I would also include a >400 checks rule, to make it less hidden gem and more truly underrated
You mean not on the <400 list or only movies with more than 400 checks are eligible?
But good point about in making less a hidden gem poll again

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1061
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#17

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » December 10th, 2018, 3:11 pm

Surely a film can have 10, 50, 100 checks and be underrated. Limiting such a poll to movies with quite high check counts would most likely make the results less interesting to me.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 1737
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#18

Post by beavis » December 10th, 2018, 3:59 pm

If a movie is hardly rated at all, how can it be underrated? or how can you be sure it is underrated. maybe you only mean that it is underseen?… to prevent that discussion, a treshhold might help. It is only a suggestion. I'm not sure how much more/less interesting it would make the results. It is surely not a poll I voted for ;)

User avatar
Ivan0716
Posts: 867
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

#19

Post by Ivan0716 » December 10th, 2018, 5:17 pm

Can't believe we've never done a directed by women poll until now!

With the so-called underrated poll, I do question whether or not we need so many variations of these hipster polls. I can sort of imagine it being a hybrid of films from the 500<400 and 0 official list polls (which most people seemed to have hated) with low IMDB ratings, and a whole lot more effort to put a submission together.

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1061
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#20

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » December 10th, 2018, 7:17 pm

beavis wrote:
December 10th, 2018, 3:59 pm
If a movie is hardly rated at all, how can it be underrated? or how can you be sure it is underrated. maybe you only mean that it is underseen?… to prevent that discussion, a treshhold might help. It is only a suggestion. I'm not sure how much more/less interesting it would make the results. It is surely not a poll I voted for ;)
No, I mean what I said. I think there is a threshold of five votes on IMDb in order for a film to register a viewable rating. Now, that might be a little on the low side and occasionally skew how the film's rating appears. I think a threshold of 400 checks would be much too high, though (and would rule out a great many films that are both underseen and underrated). I could perhaps understand a threshold of 50 checks.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
Lakigigar
Posts: 1095
Joined: Oct 31, 2015
Location: Belgium
Contact:

#21

Post by Lakigigar » December 14th, 2018, 11:41 pm

Coming-of-age almost make it. Glad Benelux made it. I hope we can do a challenge about coming-of-age movies in 2020 and a making a list of it in 2020.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 10596
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#22

Post by mjf314 » December 15th, 2018, 1:16 am

I guess it's too late for suggestions, but I'm wondering, would anyone be interested in a "Films you should see by the age of 14" poll? (our own version of the BFI list)

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7281
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#23

Post by Lonewolf2003 » December 18th, 2018, 4:26 pm

I'm going to switch Documentaries and Underrated, so the balance between new and repeat votes is better. Unless people are against this.

For now I would say the criteria for underrated are: rated under 7 on IMDB and not included on the TSPDT list, S&S list or our own 1001 Favourite Movies list.

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 5188
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#24

Post by sol » December 18th, 2018, 4:30 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
December 18th, 2018, 4:26 pm
I'm going to switch Documentaries and Underrated, so the balance between new and repeat votes is better. Unless people are against this.

For now I would say the criteria for underrated are: rated under 7 on IMDB and not included on the TSPDT list, S&S list or our own 1001 Favourite Movies list.
I'd add not included in our 500<400 list as well.

Documentaries poll in January would make sense since we will have just finished the Official Challenge if that's what you mean.
Former IMDb message boards user /// iCM | IMDb | My Top 500+ Favourite Films /// Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
rnilsson19
Posts: 502
Joined: Dec 01, 2016
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#25

Post by rnilsson19 » December 18th, 2018, 4:43 pm

I'd say the underrated films should have more than at least 750 checks or something as well to prevent overlapping between 500<400 films and obscure films in general.

User avatar
Ivan0716
Posts: 867
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

#26

Post by Ivan0716 » December 18th, 2018, 5:38 pm

I think all you really need for an underrated poll is a sufficiently low ratings threshold, 6 or lower will probably eliminate 95%+ of the films on those lists, and I'd argue anything rated higher than that can't really be called "underrated" anyway. :think:

I agree with a minimum check count if we're keeping the 7 threshold to prevent this from turning into another hidden gem poll (which some of you are clearly trying to do :rolleyes: ), but I would suggest using the #votes on imdb over the iCM checks if we're gonna be using imdb ratings, it'll save a lot of work.

User avatar
72allinncallme
Donator
Posts: 2058
Joined: Nov 13, 2016
Contact:

#27

Post by 72allinncallme » December 18th, 2018, 5:44 pm

Ivan0716 wrote:
December 18th, 2018, 5:38 pm
I think all you really need for an underrated poll is a sufficiently low ratings threshold, 6 or lower will probably eliminate 95%+ of the films on those lists, and I'd argue anything rated higher than that can't really be called "underrated" anyway. :think:
+1

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3157
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#28

Post by OldAle1 » December 18th, 2018, 5:54 pm

Yeah, I really think that if Roger's opinion for example were to hold sway, we could well end up with results that had quite a large overlap with 500<400, particularly if the cutoff rating were 7 rather than 6. But that's a gut feeling, I could certainly be wrong and somebody can probably easily come up with the numbers to show that I am :o

Anyway, while I'll probably participate and am kind of interested in the results (especially if the kinds of restrictions I envision get put in place, and it's very different from other polls in it's final list), I also can't help but agree somewhat with what Ivan posted above
With the so-called underrated poll, I do question whether or not we need so many variations of these hipster polls.
I mean, ultimately how many times should we all get to shout out "NO, REALLY, THESE ARE THE BEST FILMS THAT NOBODY ELSE HAS SEEN OR THAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS TOO STUPID TO APPRECIATE THE WAY THE ULTIMATE CINEASTE, ME, DOES"

User avatar
flaiky
Posts: 1194
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: London UK
Contact:

#29

Post by flaiky » December 18th, 2018, 7:34 pm

Ivan0716 wrote:
December 18th, 2018, 5:38 pm
I agree with a minimum check count if we're keeping the 7 threshold to prevent this from turning into another hidden gem poll (which some of you are clearly trying to do :rolleyes: ), but I would suggest using the #votes on imdb over the iCM checks if we're gonna be using imdb ratings, it'll save a lot of work.
Agreed. Personally I prefer this to a 6 rating maximum...under 6 is pretty low, I think I'd only have a handful of films I like enough to vote for.

I'm intrigued by this poll but my god making a ballot is going to be a nightmare (not least because I stopped rating films on IMDb a year ago :/ )
Let the ashes fly
ICM | Letterboxd | All-time stats

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3157
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#30

Post by OldAle1 » December 18th, 2018, 7:37 pm

flaiky wrote:
December 18th, 2018, 7:34 pm


I'm intrigued by this poll but my god making a ballot is going to be a nightmare (not least because I stopped rating films on IMDb a year ago :/ )
Why? "Fuck you IMDb" or "I just can't rate shit anymore". I considered the former but I guess I just was too comfortable with my rating style and all. I feel like the numbers themselves are less and less meaningful but they certainly are some use in making lists, and that's really why I keep rating at this point, because I really can't instantly remember which of all the dozens of films noir I've seen with titles like "He Walked the Dark Streets Alone" I've seen and which were really good. Ratings as memory-joggers, that's what they're good for I suppose.

User avatar
flaiky
Posts: 1194
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: London UK
Contact:

#31

Post by flaiky » December 18th, 2018, 7:41 pm

Well yeah partly because I was pissed off with them, but mainly because I decided Letterboxd was MUCH better and I see no reason to rate films on two different websites. I do still like giving ratings, but have simplified it to a 5 star scale because yeah, over-analysing starting to feel silly.
Let the ashes fly
ICM | Letterboxd | All-time stats

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1061
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#32

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » December 18th, 2018, 8:36 pm

Interesting thoughts.

When I'm browsing IMDb, I tend to think of a 6.3 rating or above as a reasonable score. When it's 6.1 or 6.2, I look upon it as getting into lower-rated territory. My instinct would be to have a 6.2 threshold but 6 or 6.5 might be more popular cut-offs. I personally think that 6.5 is a touch too high though.

I don't really see the need to set a threshold on the number of checks. I think a great film with 50 checks and a rating of 5.8 should be eligible just as much as a great film with 500 checks and a rating of 5.8. The consensus seems to be against my way of thinking though and that's fine. Either way, I'm sure I'll contribute a list of favourites.
That's all, folks!

beasterne
Posts: 89
Joined: May 22, 2013
Contact:

#33

Post by beasterne » December 18th, 2018, 9:24 pm

mjf314 wrote:
December 15th, 2018, 1:16 am
I guess it's too late for suggestions, but I'm wondering, would anyone be interested in a "Films you should see by the age of 14" poll? (our own version of the BFI list)
I'm definitely interested in this. I really like the concept behind the BFI list but some of the choices seem really out of left field as well as it being a few years old. We could probably put together a really interesting list based on this criteria.

beasterne
Posts: 89
Joined: May 22, 2013
Contact:

#34

Post by beasterne » December 18th, 2018, 9:35 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
December 18th, 2018, 4:26 pm
I'm going to switch Documentaries and Underrated, so the balance between new and repeat votes is better. Unless people are against this.

For now I would say the criteria for underrated are: rated under 7 on IMDB and not included on the TSPDT list, S&S list or our own 1001 Favourite Movies list.
This criteria looks about right to me. There are lots of movies that are rated under 7 that deserve recognition--setting the threshold below 6 is too severe I think. In terms of making this list "underrated, not underseen" I would add "not on 500<400" as well because the films that show up on that list are not underrated by this community.

User avatar
Ivan0716
Posts: 867
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

#35

Post by Ivan0716 » December 18th, 2018, 10:57 pm

RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
December 18th, 2018, 8:36 pm
I don't really see the need to set a threshold on the number of checks. I think a great film with 50 checks and a rating of 5.8 should be eligible just as much as a great film with 500 checks and a rating of 5.8. The consensus seems to be against my way of thinking though and that's fine. Either way, I'm sure I'll contribute a list of favourites.
I think that was suggested as a way of preventing overlaps with lists like 500<400 and DtC, if the rating threshold is set low enough for that to not be a major issue then I don't think it's necessary neither.

beasterne wrote:
December 18th, 2018, 9:35 pm
This criteria looks about right to me. There are lots of movies that are rated under 7 that deserve recognition--setting the threshold below 6 is too severe I think. In terms of making this list "underrated, not underseen" I would add "not on 500<400" as well because the films that show up on that list are not underrated by this community.
Sure there are plenty of films under 7 that deserve recognition, but are they "underrated"? By definition of the word underrated films should mean films that...well, have a low rating. IMO keeping the threshold at (a fairly high)7 and just excluding films from a bunch of reputable lists gives us a poll of "underappreciated" films at best. I can also imagine(i.e. blindly speculate) that an overwhelming percentage of the results will be in the 6.x to 7 range, which again, aren't actually low ratings at all.

If we think 6 is too low then maybe we can try and find that magic number, but to be honest, if everyone is so uncomfortable with films at the lower end(actually more like the middle) of the IMDB rating scale, is it really a good idea to do an underrated poll? I don't want to make assumptions but I think some of the people that voted for that poll did so because they just thought it'd be another outlet for them to peddle their hidden gems, rather having an interest in films that are actually lowly rated. So far it seems like the most of the people involved in this discussion didn't actually vote for the damn thing (except Roger who proposed it I think).

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1061
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#36

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » December 18th, 2018, 11:13 pm

Did I propose it? Haha, maybe I did. I rather forget. I think it would make sense to exclude films that appear in the lists that have been mentioned.

I also think 7 is much too high. I was using 5.8 as an example but would favour something in the region of 6.5 or under. I regard 6.5 as a pretty good rating so my preference, as I alluded to, would be 6.2.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
Ivan0716
Posts: 867
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

#37

Post by Ivan0716 » December 18th, 2018, 11:28 pm

Uh, maybe it wasn't you, sorry all these usernames sound the same to me. :shrug:

I think 6.2-6.3 is fair, 6.5 is close to my idea of a good rating as well, as in I wouldn't turn away from a film with that rating, but lower than that I begin to have doubts.

User avatar
RedHawk10
Posts: 423
Joined: Feb 06, 2017
Contact:

#38

Post by RedHawk10 » December 18th, 2018, 11:45 pm

flaiky wrote:
December 18th, 2018, 7:41 pm
Well yeah partly because I was pissed off with them, but mainly because I decided Letterboxd was MUCH better and I see no reason to rate films on two different websites. I do still like giving ratings, but have simplified it to a 5 star scale because yeah, over-analysing starting to feel silly.
Same here, although I kept my normal 10 star rating system for movies, because LB obviously gives the option of using half-stars. That's how I've always "rated" my enjoyment/appreciation of films, so switching to anything else at this point would feel weird.

It's way easier to sort and change things on LB at this point. IMDB is a tedious mess.

User avatar
Opio
Posts: 103
Joined: May 19, 2018
Location: U.S.
Contact:

#39

Post by Opio » December 19th, 2018, 12:11 am

RedHawk10 wrote:
December 18th, 2018, 11:45 pm
flaiky wrote:
December 18th, 2018, 7:41 pm
Well yeah partly because I was pissed off with them, but mainly because I decided Letterboxd was MUCH better and I see no reason to rate films on two different websites. I do still like giving ratings, but have simplified it to a 5 star scale because yeah, over-analysing starting to feel silly.
Same here, although I kept my normal 10 star rating system for movies, because LB obviously gives the option of using half-stars. That's how I've always "rated" my enjoyment/appreciation of films, so switching to anything else at this point would feel weird.

It's way easier to sort and change things on LB at this point. IMDB is a tedious mess.
I tried to get some feedback recently on what was better than or wrong with IMDB, so this is helpful to hear. People seem to like Letterboxd then? I also heard about Criticker, is that any good?

Also, I believe the user jeff_v suggested the underrated movies poll. I voted for it because the poll that has been the most interesting to me since my short time following here was 500<400. Granted I'm not much of a genre fan, outside of old comedies and mysteries, and the genre polls yield some frustration over defining boundaries. I didn't realize there were other similar, repeated underrated polls, such as 0 lists and something else perhaps? I thought a poll based on a relatively low IMDB rating might yield different picks than lists based more on a smaller number of viewings (e.g., Carriage to Vienna has a 7.8 on IMDB with a relatively low number of votes (543)).

jeff_v
Posts: 799
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Another Place
Contact:

#40

Post by jeff_v » December 19th, 2018, 6:03 am

Guys, underrated is not the same as 'bad movies we love' or 'guilty pleasures.' It's movies you feel that you like more than the consensus or conventional wisdom. There's already an ICM list of films with the most favorites and IMDb rating under 6.0 and it's garbage. I am thinking more about stuff like Robert De Niro's The Good Shepherd, which I think is a brilliant psychological history of an organization, but which most people (if they saw it all) shrugged at and thought was flabby or boring. Or the 1932 A Farewell to Arms, which upset people expecting a faithful Hemingway adaption who got a feverishly romantic Borzage film instead. Those movies are rated 6.7 and 6.5, respectively. A good recent example might be Spike Lee's Chi-Raq, which I found audacious and bracingly funny, but pulls a meager 5.7.

Think films that didn't seem to get a fair shake on initial release. Underappreciated gems from auteurs who were after their fashionable sell-by date. Films that resonate with you on a personal level that aren't easily grokked by the custodians of film culture. The reason the poll appeals to me is because I'm curious if there are any commonalities --does this particular coterie of cinephiles treasure certain films that were unjusly maligned outside its community? Are there great films hidden in plain sight, maybe skipped over due to bad word of mouth, but as worthy of ardency as any canonized classic or Official ICM Mafia film?

Post Reply