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 4 released May 26th)
Polls: 1950s (Results), 1966 awards (May 28th), 1935 (May 29th)
Challenges: Comedy, Western, Iberian Peninsula
Film of the Week: Unter den Brücken, June nominations (May 29th)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2A: Poland vs Mexico (Jun 4th), Match 2B: Tajikistan vs Italy (Jun 14th)

ICM Forum's 500<400 2019 RESULTS!

500<400, Favourite 1001 movies, Doubling the Canon, Film World Cup and many other votes
Post Reply
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7548
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

Re: ICM Forum's 500<400 2019 RESULTS!

#761

Post by xianjiro » April 10th, 2020, 12:57 am

Okay, not that anyone has asked for my initial reasoning, but if the purpose is to call attention to underseen films, I'd argue that 100 more films would get attention if those already on a given list were excluded. While I anticipated the response "I use number of official lists when selecting films to see", I'm amazed no one has even tried to look at what the possible upside might be - let alone discuss it.

Think outside the box and the monkeys just throw shit at you.

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

User avatar
weirdboy
Donator
Posts: 3704
Joined: Jan 03, 2016
Contact:

#762

Post by weirdboy » April 10th, 2020, 1:14 am

xianjiro wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 12:57 am
Okay, not that anyone has asked for my initial reasoning, but if the purpose is to call attention to underseen films, I'd argue that 100 more films would get attention if those already on a given list were excluded. While I anticipated the response "I use number of official lists when selecting films to see", I'm amazed no one has even tried to look at what the possible upside might be - let alone discuss it.

Think outside the box and the monkeys just throw shit at you.
First off, just because people disagree with you does not justify your insulting characterization.

Second, the point of the counter argument is that those 100 films are also underseen and deserve attention, and by virtue of the voting system they are ranked higher than whatever other 100 films would make the cutoff had they been excluded. As those films become less underseen, they are naturally replaced by those other 100 movies when the list is updated annually.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24705
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#763

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » April 10th, 2020, 1:37 am

xianjiro wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 12:57 am
While I anticipated the response "I use number of official lists when selecting films to see"
No, the anticipated response is "I want to use this list to help me select lesser seen films to see." A list should stand on its own first, no official checks is a criteria acceptable for some contexts, but in this context the goal is to create a list of great films that are underseen regardless of officialness. If you exclude official checks now the list is just unofficial films and a film on one list can only be discovered through that list, and maybe it's on some giant list someone isn't interested in like the Vogel list or UNESCO or maybe it's in a country/genre people don't want to work on. # of official lists is an additive perspective, and yes that's one way to choose films to see, but an extra list is also complementary by providing another avenue to discover films directly through the list, and frankly a list that doesn't exclude official checks has a much more accessible criteria and becomes much more interesting to work on than a list that does for most people.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7548
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#764

Post by xianjiro » April 10th, 2020, 1:52 am

Sorry if the monkey shit comment was offensive - granted, no one actually said anything nasty - but it was an honest reaction to something that could, at best, be only described as complete negativity. And for what it's worth, I don't think remembering that we have common ancestors, as humans, or as great apes, is anything like an insult. One monkey suggested something different and the response was pretty well-conditioned = uniform rejection and opposition with total effort to shut down discussion without regard for the sake of the suggestion. I don't ask people to agree, but at least we can think about suggestions that are made with the health of the iCM ecosystem firmly in mind, no? So who would feel insulted now?

Do we have stats on how many films move off 500<400 per year because they've reached 400 checks? I'm sure we can dig through past discussions and ferret it out, but my recollection is that each year that number is well below 100. It also seems like the same movies have sat at the top of the list for some time - not much movement. Six of the top 10 currently have over 300 checks, so we'll see if they hit 400 by the next poll.

Also, I don't believe "naturally replaced by those other 100 movies" is a fair characterisation. It's a bit more complex than these movies cycling off, these movies cycling on now and is highly dependent on voting trends. Some of have questioned how much this is affected by things like World Cup, FotW, and other forms of promotion on the forum.

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

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24705
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#765

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » April 10th, 2020, 2:09 am

xianjiro wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 1:52 am
Do we have stats on how many films move off 500<400 per year because they've reached 400 checks? I'm sure we can dig through past discussions and ferret it out, but my recollection is that each year that number is well below 100.
There's about 130 or so new films every year. Some of those are drop offs, not films that reach over 400, but about half are.
I don't have the numbers the time, but for a rough idea we can look at the numbers right now.
Current 2019 List: 28 films over 400
2018 List: 61 Films over 400
2017 List: 120 Films over 400
2016 List: 168 films over 400

If the list moved much more than that I don't think it would be all that good. A certain amount a consistency is necessary for a list to have meaning and, in the context of ICM, to be worth working on.

AB537
Posts: 757
Joined: Apr 21, 2018
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

#766

Post by AB537 » April 10th, 2020, 2:58 am

A lot of the consistency also derives from films that have a dedicated following among regular users of this particular forum, and which - for any number of reasons - haven't been watched much by others. In my opinion, that's not a bad thing.

The nature of this list means a lot of films in the lower ranks on the list rely on the same people showing up year after year to promote them, to a greater degree than any other project here. Some of those are underseen gems, while others are films with a small and very enthusiastic following that otherwise have very little appeal. I agree that for better or for worse, who shows up to vote is the biggest factor in what films fill the gaps. That said, it's also good that it takes at least a few people voting for a film to push it onto the list (even though it means my #1 pick last year didn't make it - maybe it will do better in this year's DtC poll). Some of my favourites on the current list will probably drop off this year because they hit 400 checks in the interim, which is great since it means more people have seen them (and hopefully enjoyed them as much as I did!).

I'd also suggest that about 15-20% of the Doubling the Canon list is actually more obscure than most films on 500 < 400 because of the nature of how that poll works. As others have pointed out, the easiest way to get something on DtC appears to be to nominate something that about 8-15 forum users have seen and hope that pool of people liked it.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3954
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#767

Post by Onderhond » April 10th, 2020, 4:56 am

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 1:37 am
but an extra list is also complementary by providing another avenue to discover films directly through the list
That may be why ICM is suffering from an "all roads lead to Rome" syndrome. Whatever list you take, you always end up at the same pool of films.
I would support xianjiro's idea, but ICM just isn't the place for that.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24705
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#768

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » April 10th, 2020, 6:25 am

Onderhond wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 4:56 am
That may be why ICM is suffering from an "all roads lead to Rome" syndrome. Whatever list you take, you always end up at the same pool of films.
That might be true for the canon lists, but it's not really true of the genre and country lists or the site as a whole.
There are 15925 Official checks
9208 (57.8%) in only one list
2630 (16.5% ) in only 2
That's just about three quarters of the films in only two lists. That's a lot of diversity.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3954
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#769

Post by Onderhond » April 10th, 2020, 6:57 am

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 6:25 am
That's just about three quarters of the films in only two lists. That's a lot of diversity.
I appreciate the maths, but ICM's idea of diversity is picking the 15th best Naruse film because the other 14 are already featured in official lists. Sure enough, it boosts the numbers, but calling that diversity is a real stretch.

ICM is extremely focused on critics favorites. There are indeed a few lists that divert from that mold, but they are few and far between. It's true that the genre/country lists tend to add lesser known films, but most of them are still very canon-ready material.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24705
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#770

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » April 10th, 2020, 7:15 am

Fair enough, but at that point we're getting way far afield from this discussion. I think your concerns are more general about canon building, and they're reasonable, but I'm not sure how they could be reasonably incorporated into ICM whose presentation of lists is basically here are different canons and approaches to the canon. The basic idea of canon building is fundamental to the site.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3954
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#771

Post by Onderhond » April 10th, 2020, 7:25 am

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 7:15 am
The basic idea of canon building is fundamental to the site.
I don't think it's fundamental, but it's definitely a logical evolution on a site like this.

Personally I feel that a bit more pushback would be nice, on the other hand I don't think the current ICM Forum community is the best place to do that. Just to say that in theory I support xianjiro's idea, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference either way.

User avatar
PGonzalez
Posts: 360
Joined: Sep 08, 2013
Contact:

#772

Post by PGonzalez » April 10th, 2020, 7:49 am

Onderhond wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 7:25 am
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 7:15 am
The basic idea of canon building is fundamental to the site.
I don't think it's fundamental, but it's definitely a logical evolution on a site like this.
It wouldn't be if there wasn't such a thing as official lists, but once that distinction is introduced then the lists that are official are automatically building a sort of canon (even if it is a canon that's complemented by some one-size-fits-all additions, like Ain't Nobody's Blues or 500<400). How would you be able to conciliate the gamification of the site without converging to some kind of canon?

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7548
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#773

Post by xianjiro » April 10th, 2020, 7:58 am

One thing I'm going to toss in the ring - prior to actually comparing DtC and 500<400, I would have sworn the overlap was closer to 50% (films on 500<400 and also on DtC). Of course before actually calculating, that was a simple impression based on what I was checking and then updating the lists effected in my spreadsheet. For whatever reason, I just seemed to watch a lot of the 99 films that make the overlap and so it seemed much greater than it is in reality.

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

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3954
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#774

Post by Onderhond » April 10th, 2020, 8:38 am

PGonzalez wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 7:49 am
It wouldn't be if there wasn't such a thing as official lists, but once that distinction is introduced then the lists that are official are automatically building a sort of canon (even if it is a canon that's complemented by some one-size-fits-all additions, like Ain't Nobody's Blues or 500<400). How would you be able to conciliate the gamification of the site without converging to some kind of canon?
Well, I guess it comes down to the lists that are made official.

Next to the "usual suspects", it would be nice if there was more room for dissenting voices or deep dives. For example, I get the need/appeal of the fantasy list we have, but as a genre/fantasy fan I'm really not interested in 2001: A Space Odyssey, Pretty Woman and Lord of the Rings. I would be really nice to get an alternative list that focuses more on less obvious choices/purer genre highlights. Sometimes we get lucky (like the Paste anime list), sometimes we get creative (like the TSZDT), but these are the exceptions rather than the rule.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8558
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#775

Post by Lonewolf2003 » April 10th, 2020, 9:30 am

Onderhond wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 8:38 am
PGonzalez wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 7:49 am
It wouldn't be if there wasn't such a thing as official lists, but once that distinction is introduced then the lists that are official are automatically building a sort of canon (even if it is a canon that's complemented by some one-size-fits-all additions, like Ain't Nobody's Blues or 500<400). How would you be able to conciliate the gamification of the site without converging to some kind of canon?
Well, I guess it comes down to the lists that are made official.

Next to the "usual suspects", it would be nice if there was more room for dissenting voices or deep dives. For example, I get the need/appeal of the fantasy list we have, but as a genre/fantasy fan I'm really not interested in 2001: A Space Odyssey, Pretty Woman and Lord of the Rings. I would be really nice to get an alternative list that focuses more on less obvious choices/purer genre highlights. Sometimes we get lucky (like the Paste anime list), sometimes we get creative (like the TSZDT), but these are the exceptions rather than the rule.
The lists that are made official are very much depended on which list are available. We are as iCM mods also trying to diversify and deep dive to counter "the canon". But most lists are made by (polls of) critics, so that iCM is very critics centred is a direct result from that. If you know any good quality lists that counters the canon, let us know, we will consider it.

But like PA said this is a completely different off topic discussion.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3954
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#776

Post by Onderhond » April 10th, 2020, 11:01 am

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 9:30 am
If you know any good quality lists that counters the canon, let us know, we will consider it.
I know they are quite hard to find, then again I'm not someone who actively looks for lists. Mostly because they rarely offer me useful tips of course. It's a chicken & egg problem I'm afraid. :)
Lonewolf2003 wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 9:30 am
But like PA said this is a completely different off topic discussion.
Well, I don't agree. I think it's the source of the topic/problem and it's probably better to try and fix the source of the problem rather than the symptom. If you want more diversity/exploration in the ICM Forum lists, you have to make sure ICM itself offers more diverse official lists so it will attract a broader range of film fans.

User avatar
72aicm
Donator
Posts: 3234
Joined: Nov 13, 2016
Contact:

#777

Post by 72aicm » April 10th, 2020, 11:18 am

xianjiro wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 7:58 am
For whatever reason, I just seemed to watch a lot of the 99 films that make the overlap and so it seemed much greater than it is in reality.
Probably because you’re such a check whore who “use number of official lists when selecting films to see". ;)

User avatar
PGonzalez
Posts: 360
Joined: Sep 08, 2013
Contact:

#778

Post by PGonzalez » April 10th, 2020, 1:08 pm

Onderhond wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 8:38 am
PGonzalez wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 7:49 am
It wouldn't be if there wasn't such a thing as official lists, but once that distinction is introduced then the lists that are official are automatically building a sort of canon (even if it is a canon that's complemented by some one-size-fits-all additions, like Ain't Nobody's Blues or 500<400). How would you be able to conciliate the gamification of the site without converging to some kind of canon?
Well, I guess it comes down to the lists that are made official.

Next to the "usual suspects", it would be nice if there was more room for dissenting voices or deep dives. For example, I get the need/appeal of the fantasy list we have, but as a genre/fantasy fan I'm really not interested in 2001: A Space Odyssey, Pretty Woman and Lord of the Rings. I would be really nice to get an alternative list that focuses more on less obvious choices/purer genre highlights. Sometimes we get lucky (like the Paste anime list), sometimes we get creative (like the TSZDT), but these are the exceptions rather than the rule.
Sure, I understand the need for somewhat disruptive choices to keep things interesting, but like Lonewolf said critics and scholars are usually the only ones in a position to create such lists - or to make them visible - and the alternatives (either popularity lists, usually carbon copies of each other like Reddit, FOK or IMDb, or more or less randomly chosen stuff, like the spiritual list) aren't exactly better when it comes to avoiding self-reference, i.e. there aren't many options and it seems like most of the better ones are the ones being adopted. Also, I'd argue that most of the country lists, in which ICM excels, are very obscure focused by nature, even if they aren't dissenting because there really isn't a great possibility of dissent when it comes to a lot of those lists. The idea of disruption for the sake of variety is fun, and there's already DtC and 500<400 for that, as long as it isn't overdone.

Still, I totally agree with you regarding deep dive lists as a very viable option for the future. Mightysparks, ChrisReynolds and the other contributors already did something phenomenal with TSZDT, and I remember reading one or two people suggesting doing something similar with westerns and sci-fi, which seem like a great way to combine both the canonical and the dissenting in the same list.

Edit: I just checked, and there's only one film (2001) present in more than 20% of official lists, which is quite nice :)

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3954
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#779

Post by Onderhond » April 10th, 2020, 1:40 pm

PGonzalez wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 1:08 pm
Sure, I understand the need for somewhat disruptive choices to keep things interesting, but like Lonewolf said critics and scholars are usually the only ones in a position to create such lists - or to make them visible
I think visibility/clout is the biggest hurdle there, which is why these list are often just as much "popularity lists" as the Reddit or IMDb ones. Whether it's popular arthouse or popular blockbusters really doesn't make much of a difference imo. The most successful approach would be to go for singular critic lists that stand out from the rest, but like I said, I rarely rely on critics to find films I like, so I'm not sure what's out there.
PGonzalez wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 1:08 pm
Also, I'd argue that most of the country lists, in which ICM excels, are very obscure focused by nature, even if they aren't dissenting because there really isn't a great possibility of dissent when it comes to a lot of those lists.
Hmmm, I don't agree, but because I don't see obscurity as an immediate measure of diversity. To stick with what I know: the Japanese lists for example (the Kinema Junpo one in particular, because that seems to be a critics favorite) may feature many "obscure" films for us Westerners, but the films themselves are all very much stuck in the same niches. It's mostly just arthouse dramas and elevated commercial films.
PGonzalez wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 1:08 pm
The idea of disruption for the sake of variety is fun, and there's already DtC and 500<400 for that, as long as it isn't overdone.
Myeah, again, these lists fail at adding much variety in my opinion. I just don't feel changing the rules for submissions would fix that problem :)

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3894
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#780

Post by Fergenaprido » April 10th, 2020, 5:09 pm

weirdboy wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 1:14 am
xianjiro wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 12:57 am
Okay, not that anyone has asked for my initial reasoning, but if the purpose is to call attention to underseen films, I'd argue that 100 more films would get attention if those already on a given list were excluded. While I anticipated the response "I use number of official lists when selecting films to see", I'm amazed no one has even tried to look at what the possible upside might be - let alone discuss it.

Think outside the box and the monkeys just throw shit at you.
First off, just because people disagree with you does not justify your insulting characterization.

Second, the point of the counter argument is that those 100 films are also underseen and deserve attention, and by virtue of the voting system they are ranked higher than whatever other 100 films would make the cutoff had they been excluded. As those films become less underseen, they are naturally replaced by those other 100 movies when the list is updated annually.
I'm in agreement with weirdboy here, I don't understand the hostility you're throwing out here xianjiro; it's also not something I expected from you.

Your original post was asking a question if we'd considered something, and by extension, if people thought it was a good idea to consider that proposal. Namely,
xianjiro wrote:Have we ever considered excluding films from at least DtC, but possibly also TSPDT 1000 & 2000, from inclusion in the 500<400?
Everyone who answered you either answered the literal question (i.e. No, it's not something that has been considered in the past), or their own personal preference (i.e. No, it's not something they think should be implemented). At no point did anyone disparage you from asking the question, nor did they try to shut the discussion down.
xianjiro wrote:Okay, not that anyone has asked for my initial reasoning
Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I don't think we should have to ask for your initial reasoning; that's something I would expect you to provide in your initial post unprompted. That being said, I did ask you a question, which you've seemingly ignored.
Fergenaprido wrote:As for DTC and 500<400, what's wrong with 20% overlap?
And people actually did try to look at the "possible upside"; Sol even agreed with you about the TSPDT 1000 being excluded, and gave reasoning why he didn't think it made sense that the DTC also be excluded. If you go back and read the responses that the others gave, I think you will see that we did take your question seriously, we did attempt to engage in dialogue on the topic, and we do have legitimate reasons why we may or may not agree with your proposal.
xianjiro wrote:Sorry if the monkey shit comment was offensive - granted, no one actually said anything nasty - but it was an honest reaction to something that could, at best, be only described as complete negativity. And for what it's worth, I don't think remembering that we have common ancestors, as humans, or as great apes, is anything like an insult. One monkey suggested something different and the response was pretty well-conditioned = uniform rejection and opposition with total effort to shut down discussion without regard for the sake of the suggestion. I don't ask people to agree, but at least we can think about suggestions that are made with the health of the iCM ecosystem firmly in mind, no? So who would feel insulted now?
Yes, it was offensive, and if you don't understand why it was I don't think I'm able to explain it to you. I went and reread all of the response and I did not see "complete negativity" in them, only a difference of opinions. Calling people who disagree with you monkeys has nothing to do with our evolutionary biology (and I'm sure there's a proper term for this type of argument but I don't know what it is). Ultimately, it does come across that you are asking people to agree with you, simply because you didn't like the answer they gave when they disagreed with you so you chose to believe that they didn't give your suggestion enough thought.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7548
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#781

Post by xianjiro » April 10th, 2020, 5:46 pm

72aicm wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 11:18 am
xianjiro wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 7:58 am
For whatever reason, I just seemed to watch a lot of the 99 films that make the overlap and so it seemed much greater than it is in reality.
Probably because you’re such a check whore who “use number of official lists when selecting films to see". ;)
I used to be concerned about that - number of official lists - when prioritizing films on a list. I called them low hanging fruit a few years ago. But I've also gone through both DtC and 500<400, entry by entry to see what I can actually get - though I don't tend to search on uToob since it varies in quality so widely. :)

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: 7548
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#782

Post by xianjiro » April 10th, 2020, 6:05 pm

Fergenaprido wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 5:09 pm
xianjiro wrote:Okay, not that anyone has asked for my initial reasoning
Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I don't think we should have to ask for your initial reasoning; that's something I would expect you to provide in your initial post unprompted. That being said, I did ask you a question, which you've seemingly ignored.
Fergenaprido wrote:As for DTC and 500<400, what's wrong with 20% overlap?
And people actually did try to look at the "possible upside"; Sol even agreed with you about the TSPDT 1000 being excluded, and gave reasoning why he didn't think it made sense that the DTC also be excluded. If you go back and read the responses that the others gave, I think you will see that we did take your question seriously, we did attempt to engage in dialogue on the topic, and we do have legitimate reasons why we may or may not agree with your proposal.
When opening a topic for discussion, I don't like to start with what I think: it often comes across as having an agenda and preempts other viewpoints. Sorry I missed your question - it's hard to know in this space what is rhetorical and what is actually asking for input. My response to that would still be, if we're seeking to shine a light on films that get little or no notice then I'm not entirely sure that's what is happening. To be clear, I made no proposal and I can see where an independent read of the thread might have had different take.

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

AB537
Posts: 757
Joined: Apr 21, 2018
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

#783

Post by AB537 » April 10th, 2020, 6:36 pm

If people are looking for lists that have suggestions that are a bit off the beaten path, one good resource I've found (actually through TSPDT) is La Cinetek, a French streaming service which posts lists of recommendations from directors (76 as of today), many of which are not well known even in cinephile circles. The lists generally contain about 50 films, and while most/all of the lists have their fair share of usual suspects, almost all mix in some more obscure recommendations. Another advantage to La Cinetek is the diversity of directors who have provided lists, both in terms of geography and life experience, and the directors' lists often reflect this. Women and LGBT directors are more represented than in many lists, and there is good geographic coverage as well. While the individual lists would be unwieldy to include, an aggregated list of mentioned films might be a good addition on ICM.

I think it's also worth noting that ICM does contain several lists which attempt to fill the gap that's being discussed, including Total Film's 50 Amazing Films You've Probably Never Seen, Sight & Sound's 75 Hidden Gems and Ain't Nobody's Blues but My Own. On top of that, the Cahiers and Jonathan Rosenbaum lists contain a lot of obscure stuff, and as others have mentioned many of the regional/country lists contain a lot of films that don't appear elsewhere, at least on ICM.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7548
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#784

Post by xianjiro » April 10th, 2020, 6:49 pm

I haven't searched iCM for any La Cenetek lists - it's something that has come up in discussion between the moderators but I think so far we only mentioned a single directors list though I can't recall who that was. But prior to that discussion I hadn't heard of La Cenetek and didn't know it was a streaming service. Thanks for the info! :)

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

AB537
Posts: 757
Joined: Apr 21, 2018
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

#785

Post by AB537 » April 10th, 2020, 6:55 pm

xianjiro wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 6:49 pm
I haven't searched iCM for any La Cenetek lists - it's something that has come up in discussion between the moderators but I think so far we only mentioned a single directors list though I can't recall who that was. But prior to that discussion I hadn't heard of La Cenetek and didn't know it was a streaming service. Thanks for the info! :)
Unfortunately I think the streaming service itself is only available in France, but the director lists are available in any country and are accessible at the top of any page. I vaguely recall some discussion a couple of years ago about potentially making some individual lists official - Park Chan-wook and Wim Wenders come to mind.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10718
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#786

Post by St. Gloede » April 10th, 2020, 7:15 pm

Is there a library of La Cinetek/La Cenetek lists? Searched, but only found Susan Sontag.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24705
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#787

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » April 10th, 2020, 7:22 pm

Gershwin made a good number of them. (maybe all?)

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7548
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#788

Post by xianjiro » April 10th, 2020, 7:26 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 7:22 pm
Gershwin made a good number of them. (maybe all?)
Cool. Thanks. I'll try to remember his profile if these lists come up in discussion again. There is this interesting one LaCinetek: The Top of the Lists last updated in July 2018.

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: 10718
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#789

Post by St. Gloede » April 10th, 2020, 7:57 pm

Also searching LaCinetek in one word gives 73 results, so there we go.

AB537
Posts: 757
Joined: Apr 21, 2018
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

#790

Post by AB537 » April 10th, 2020, 8:27 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 7:15 pm
Is there a library of La Cinetek/La Cenetek lists? Searched, but only found Susan Sontag.
https://www.lacinetek.com/en/ will get you to the homepage. Around the middle of the top menu bar, there is a drop down called "The Lists Of", from which you can pick any director you want.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10718
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#791

Post by St. Gloede » April 10th, 2020, 8:40 pm

Thank you! :cheers:

User avatar
PGonzalez
Posts: 360
Joined: Sep 08, 2013
Contact:

#792

Post by PGonzalez » April 12th, 2020, 6:06 am

Onderhond wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 1:40 pm
I think visibility/clout is the biggest hurdle there, which is why these list are often just as much "popularity lists" as the Reddit or IMDb ones. Whether it's popular arthouse or popular blockbusters really doesn't make much of a difference imo. The most successful approach would be to go for singular critic lists that stand out from the rest, but like I said, I rarely rely on critics to find films I like, so I'm not sure what's out there.
I somewhat agree regarding a lot of lists that I don't believe add much to the site (Leonard Maltin, Halliwell, BBC, Time Out, The Guardian, though these last few aren't exactly critic lists) as those do indeed feel as much "popularity lists" as the other ones; still, I feel that lists like Rosenbaum and Cahiers are among the most interesting the site has to offer, and there are some that could be adopted (Hoberman, Taubin, Ayala Blanco, Gonzalez) that could be just as interesting. I do agree with you that there seems to be a dearth of critic lists that reflect a critic's clear individuality (like Rosenbaum).
Onderhond wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 1:40 pm
Hmmm, I don't agree, but because I don't see obscurity as an immediate measure of diversity. To stick with what I know: the Japanese lists for example (the Kinema Junpo one in particular, because that seems to be a critics favorite) may feature many "obscure" films for us Westerners, but the films themselves are all very much stuck in the same niches. It's mostly just arthouse dramas and elevated commercial films.
I understand that for someone who, like you, has taken such an interest to exploring Japanese cinema, the Kinema Junpo list might seem shallow (mainly because Japan has a huge cinematic output, so there isn't exactly a lack of options/availability to further explore it like there is for many other countries), but the main purpose of these lists shouldn't really be exhaustiveness. Japan, due to its influence in world cinema, is a very particular case (like France and Italy, whose lists have easily recognizable films) but for countries like Portugal, whose list is also a collection of the usual suspects, most of them aren't really known by most cinephiles, let alone casual viewers. In the context of cinema, where viewing habits are dictated by distribution, I believe that diversity is heavily correlated with obscurity.
I would agree with the addition of lists seeking to highlight independent cinema from big cinema countries like Japan, but I'm not really sure if there are any.

Onderhond wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 1:40 pm
Myeah, again, these lists fail at adding much variety in my opinion. I just don't feel changing the rules for submissions would fix that problem :)
Completely agree, I also believe that rules for submission shouldn't be altered. My point was just that the 500<400 list is the only chance to make a few films official for users who have niche interests, like you. Unfortunately, a lot of it seems to come down to getting people to see the films you enjoy, as the list clearly favors films that are tolerated by a majority over those that are loved by a minority (something that could be easily changed if there was a limit to list length, which I always felt was a glaring omission). Still, as one of the users with a most interesting favorites list (and one that doesn't benefit from this strength in numbers), I've taken quite an interest in your top 600 and I've been slowly checking out films that you recommend over these past weeks (Mad Detective, Dead Leaves, Shaolin Soccer and Rubber until now). Maybe in the future a few of those will make it in :)

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3954
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#793

Post by Onderhond » April 12th, 2020, 8:15 am

PGonzalez wrote:
April 12th, 2020, 6:06 am
I somewhat agree regarding a lot of lists that I don't believe add much to the site (Leonard Maltin, Halliwell, BBC, Time Out, The Guardian, though these last few aren't exactly critic lists) as those do indeed feel as much "popularity lists" as the other ones; still, I feel that lists like Rosenbaum and Cahiers are among the most interesting the site has to offer, and there are some that could be adopted (Hoberman, Taubin, Ayala Blanco, Gonzalez) that could be just as interesting. I do agree with you that there seems to be a dearth of critic lists that reflect a critic's clear individuality (like Rosenbaum).
I don't quite mind the big popularity lists, but I do feel the option to filter them (genre, country, ...) would be useful. That would eliminate the need for a ton of other smaller lists that reiterate the same films with a smaller scope (like the BFI-type lists). As for the critics lists, I think Rosenbaum's list is a good example of the kind of lists that could add something to ICM, though he's still a very typical critic with an extremely strong focus on classic cinema, so I'm not surprised his list made it
PGonzalez wrote:
April 12th, 2020, 6:06 am
I understand that for someone who, like you, has taken such an interest to exploring Japanese cinema, the Kinema Junpo list might seem shallow (mainly because Japan has a huge cinematic output, so there isn't exactly a lack of options/availability to further explore it like there is for many other countries), but the main purpose of these lists shouldn't really be exhaustiveness. Japan, due to its influence in world cinema, is a very particular case (like France and Italy, whose lists have easily recognizable films) but for countries like Portugal, whose list is also a collection of the usual suspects, most of them aren't really known by most cinephiles, let alone casual viewers. In the context of cinema, where viewing habits are dictated by distribution, I believe that diversity is heavily correlated with obscurity.
I would agree with the addition of lists seeking to highlight independent cinema from big cinema countries like Japan, but I'm not really sure if there are any.
I wouldn't call Kinema Junpo shallow, because they do pick decent films within their limited niche, but it is very one-note. And that note matches most of the other lists on this site. That's why it hardly matters for me when a new country list is added. It rarely represents a broad view on a country's film output, it's just that one note repeated in another country.

PGonzalez wrote:
April 12th, 2020, 6:06 am
Completely agree, I also believe that rules for submission shouldn't be altered. My point was just that the 500<400 list is the only chance to make a few films official for users who have niche interests, like you. Unfortunately, a lot of it seems to come down to getting people to see the films you enjoy, as the list clearly favors films that are tolerated by a majority over those that are loved by a minority (something that could be easily changed if there was a limit to list length, which I always felt was a glaring omission). Still, as one of the users with a most interesting favorites list (and one that doesn't benefit from this strength in numbers), I've taken quite an interest in your top 600 and I've been slowly checking out films that you recommend over these past weeks (Mad Detective, Dead Leaves, Shaolin Soccer and Rubber until now). Maybe in the future a few of those will make it in :)
Well, I've been here 6 years I think, and I don't see any effect just yet. It's nice to hear at least someone is looking at my recommends, but I feel that the community as a whole is pretty stuck in its way, so unless it attracts a more diverse crowd (read a bigger variety in mafias) I don't think much will change :)

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11256
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#794

Post by mjf314 » April 16th, 2020, 3:13 pm

Onderhond wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 1:40 pm
Hmmm, I don't agree, but because I don't see obscurity as an immediate measure of diversity. To stick with what I know: the Japanese lists for example (the Kinema Junpo one in particular, because that seems to be a critics favorite) may feature many "obscure" films for us Westerners, but the films themselves are all very much stuck in the same niches. It's mostly just arthouse dramas and elevated commercial films.
Kinema Junpo actually published 2 lists, a critic list and a reader list. I'm curious what you think of the reader list. Does it have more diversity than the critic list?

https://mubi.com/lists/japanese-movies- ... un-readers

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3954
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#795

Post by Onderhond » April 16th, 2020, 3:34 pm

mjf314 wrote:
April 16th, 2020, 3:13 pm
Kinema Junpo actually published 2 lists, a critic list and a reader list. I'm curious what you think of the reader list. Does it have more diversity than the critic list?

https://mubi.com/lists/japanese-movies- ... un-readers
Doesn't really look like it to be honest. Then again, since this a reader's poll, it makes sense that this would be in line with the regular KJ entries. Might have a few more commercial darlings maybe?

Cool find though! If this list makes it onto ICM, do share :)

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1399
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#796

Post by cinewest » April 17th, 2020, 2:58 am

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 2:09 am
xianjiro wrote:
April 10th, 2020, 1:52 am
Do we have stats on how many films move off 500<400 per year because they've reached 400 checks? I'm sure we can dig through past discussions and ferret it out, but my recollection is that each year that number is well below 100.
There's about 130 or so new films every year. Some of those are drop offs, not films that reach over 400, but about half are.
I don't have the numbers the time, but for a rough idea we can look at the numbers right now.
Current 2019 List: 28 films over 400
2018 List: 61 Films over 400
2017 List: 120 Films over 400
2016 List: 168 films over 400

If the list moved much more than that I don't think it would be all that good. A certain amount a consistency is necessary for a list to have meaning and, in the context of ICM, to be worth working on.
Good argument, here, and well supported.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3954
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#797

Post by Onderhond » April 17th, 2020, 4:56 am

in the context of ICM, to be worth working on.
Except this, which is just 1 angle of using ICM. There is more to ICM than gamification.

AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12313
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#798

Post by AdamH » May 8th, 2020, 12:41 pm

I made a list on iCM of all the films which still have <400 checks which have featured in 500<400 at some point over the past seven years. 707 films still have <400 checks. 468 are from the 2019 edition (only 32 films have reached 400 checks so far).

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/500d ... ons/adamh/

I've started watching/re-watching some of the films on the list. We need to promote it more. There's 40+ shorts still with <400 checks despite having been on (or still on) the list.

blocho
Donator
Posts: 3067
Joined: Jul 20, 2014
Contact:

#799

Post by blocho » May 8th, 2020, 3:46 pm

AdamH wrote:
May 8th, 2020, 12:41 pm
I made a list on iCM of all the films which still have <400 checks which have featured in 500<400 at some point over the past seven years. 707 films still have <400 checks. 468 are from the 2019 edition (only 32 films have reached 400 checks so far).

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/500d ... ons/adamh/

I've started watching/re-watching some of the films on the list. We need to promote it more. There's 40+ shorts still with <400 checks despite having been on (or still on) the list.
Cool list. Thanks for making it.

AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12313
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#800

Post by AdamH » May 8th, 2020, 4:19 pm

blocho wrote:
May 8th, 2020, 3:46 pm
AdamH wrote:
May 8th, 2020, 12:41 pm
I made a list on iCM of all the films which still have <400 checks which have featured in 500<400 at some point over the past seven years. 707 films still have <400 checks. 468 are from the 2019 edition (only 32 films have reached 400 checks so far).

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/500d ... ons/adamh/

I've started watching/re-watching some of the films on the list. We need to promote it more. There's 40+ shorts still with <400 checks despite having been on (or still on) the list.
Cool list. Thanks for making it.
No problem! Glad there is some interest!

Post Reply