Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Polls: Favorite Movies (Results), 1945 (Results), 1929 awards (Apr 4th), South Asia (Apr 25th), Doubling the Canon (Ratings Apr 30th)
Challenges: Doubling the Canon, Nordic, 1950s
Film of the Week: The Music of Chance, May nominations (May 1st)
World Cup S4: Round 1 schedule, 1F: Brazil vs Greece vs Japan vs Poland (Apr 5th), 1G: Germany vs Pakistan vs Ukraine vs USA (Apr 22nd)

iCM Favorite Underrated Movies - Discussion topic

500<400, Favourite 1001 movies, Doubling the Canon, Film World Cup and many other votes
mathiasa
Posts: 2408
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

Re: iCM Favorite Underrated Movies - Discussion topic

#81

Post by mathiasa » November 28th, 2019, 1:48 pm

I also don‘t think it makes sense to enforce a rule where movies become ineligible because they are on one or multiple prestigious lists. The definition of underrated is something that has not received the merit, recognition or praise it deserves. By making list-requirements you’re ignoring the last two words of the definition. The question is not whether a movie has received any recognition at all (in which case such rules would make sense), but whether it gets the recognition it deserves. That‘s a fine but crucial distinction.

An example: One can very well think a movie on TSPDT is underrated if one thinks it would have deserved an academy award (but didn‘t get one).

As a guideline, the presence or absence of a prestigious list may be very helpful, just as the imdb/metascore/... ratings may be helpful.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8423
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#82

Post by Lonewolf2003 » November 28th, 2019, 4:44 pm

mathiasa wrote:
November 28th, 2019, 12:37 pm
Onderhond wrote:
November 28th, 2019, 12:11 pm
mathiasa wrote:
November 28th, 2019, 11:27 am
One meaning of underrated is, “something or someone not well known by the mass public but of high quality.“
I don't think it is to be honest, but some people do use it for that (and it's often an effect of being underrated).
‚underrated‘ refers to things or persons that don‘t get proper recognition. This can be either because a) it isn‘t liked by or b) it isn‘t known to the public. That‘s how the word is used and it is the usage of a word that defines its meaning. What you think the word means is no more or no less important than what other people think.

But even if we would limit this poll to the sub-meaning a), a minimum check restriction would still be an arbitrary rule.
Underrated can have both meanings indeed. But because we already have several lists that focus on the second meaning, I personally think it would be more interesting if this poll focused on the first meaning.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24168
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#83

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » November 28th, 2019, 5:13 pm

This discussion was the reason for my second suggestion.
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
November 24th, 2019, 4:53 am
  • More than 400x(#of official lists) Checks (So 0 official lists, no check limit, 1 official list - must be over 400 checks, 2 official lists - must be over 800 checks, etc) This removes critically well regarded but otherwise obscure films.
Official lists are not all equal or the best arbiter of regard, but this tries to balance allowing truly obscure underseen films while excluding films that are underseen but well regarded by enough (or the right) people to not really be underrated relative to their viewership.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8423
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#84

Post by Lonewolf2003 » November 28th, 2019, 5:33 pm

Rules should be simple to apply. People shouldn't have to do a whole calculation for making their lists.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24168
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#85

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » November 28th, 2019, 5:38 pm

It'd be easy to make a list of ineligible films from that and then people wouldn't have to do any calculations.

Making a list is already going to be a burden no matter the rules (I guess under x on imdb wouldn't be too bad for those who rate on imdb)

mathiasa
Posts: 2408
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#86

Post by mathiasa » November 28th, 2019, 5:57 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
November 28th, 2019, 5:13 pm
This discussion was the reason for my second suggestion.
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
November 24th, 2019, 4:53 am
  • More than 400x(#of official lists) Checks (So 0 official lists, no check limit, 1 official list - must be over 400 checks, 2 official lists - must be over 800 checks, etc) This removes critically well regarded but otherwise obscure films.
Official lists are not all equal or the best arbiter of regard, but this tries to balance allowing truly obscure underseen films while excluding films that are underseen but well regarded by enough (or the right) people to not really be underrated relative to their viewership.
Yes, it tries to balance it but whether it manages to achieve it is a different question. I've already pointed out the shortcomings of this and similar endeavors.

Personally, I would much prefer that the goal(s) of the poll be stated precisely in the poll post and that the voters should apply them themselves. Why not trust the voters, as we have done so many times in the past with good results? Should dubious lists be submitted, the host of the poll can deal with it - Just as joachimt did with pda's grunewald-list.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24168
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#87

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » November 28th, 2019, 6:26 pm

Yeah I don't know if 400 is "the right" number, also no hard number criteria is going to perfectly match the conceptual criteria we have. It also depends on what exactly we're looking for in the list. It's clear from the discussion that besides differences in how we want to quantify things or what criteria to use there are also differences in what the goal of the list is meant to be.

mathiasa
Posts: 2408
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#88

Post by mathiasa » November 28th, 2019, 7:08 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
November 28th, 2019, 6:26 pm
Yeah I don't know if 400 is "the right" number, also no hard number criteria is going to perfectly match the conceptual criteria we have. It also depends on what exactly we're looking for in the list. It's clear from the discussion that besides differences in how we want to quantify things or what criteria to use there are also differences in what the goal of the list is meant to be.
Agreed, but I believe a consensus about the goal is possible. At the beginning of this discussion I was not aware that if voters vote for a lot of obscure stuff, we could risk 500<400/dtc style results, which indeed would be rather boring. Being made aware of this scenario and having processed it mentally, my voting intentions have changed in that I will be very selective in including underseen movies. But in those cases where I strongly feel they are both underseen and underrated, I still want to be able to vote for them.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8423
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#89

Post by Lonewolf2003 » November 28th, 2019, 8:41 pm

mathiasa wrote:
November 28th, 2019, 7:08 pm
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
November 28th, 2019, 6:26 pm
Yeah I don't know if 400 is "the right" number, also no hard number criteria is going to perfectly match the conceptual criteria we have. It also depends on what exactly we're looking for in the list. It's clear from the discussion that besides differences in how we want to quantify things or what criteria to use there are also differences in what the goal of the list is meant to be.
Agreed, but I believe a consensus about the goal is possible. At the beginning of this discussion I was not aware that if voters vote for a lot of obscure stuff, we could risk 500<400/dtc style results, which indeed would be rather boring. Being made aware of this scenario and having processed it mentally, my voting intentions have changed in that I will be very selective in including underseen movies. But in those cases where I strongly feel they are both underseen and underrated, I still want to be able to vote for them.
I'm fine with that, as long as the focus is on the underrated aspect and not on the underseen aspect. A movie with a 5.0 rating and 100 checks could be considered underrated, but a movie with a 8.0 rating and the same amount of check not.

A consensus is possible. I feel that almost everyone does agree the list should be about movies that don't get the appreciation they think the movie should get from the "general" public and the critical consensus*. The difference are that people have different opinion what criteria there are for a movie to be considered underrated. Plus that there's a difference in opinion about if a movie that's underseen can be underrated and what criteria to use to define underseen. Since we probably never will all agree on the criteria to use, it might be best indeed to let the voters decide for themselves. Dubious nominations probably will be filtered out anyhow because they won't get enough votes. Most people probably will agree that a movie with f.e. a 8.0 rating can't be considered underrated no matter how many checks/votes it has, so that won't appear on the results list then. So at the moment I'm most inclined to set no rules. (Apart from not allowing recent movies)
*Should I include the last part in the definition? To me a move like Tree of Life that has a low IMDb rating but was very well received critically (I’m sure it will be high on many best of the decades lists) can’t be considered underrated.

Looking at the current <400 list, there are only 55 movies on that with an IMDb rating lower or equal to 6.9. So overlap wil be very little I guess.( If people use a different IMDb rating they consider as maximum, the overlap might be higher.)

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1541
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#90

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » November 29th, 2019, 3:27 am

mathiasa wrote:
November 28th, 2019, 12:51 pm
RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
November 28th, 2019, 12:09 pm
mathiasa wrote:
November 28th, 2019, 11:27 am
A minimum check count seems completely nonsensical to me. One meaning of underrated is, “something or someone not well known by the mass public but of high quality.“
I'm not sure that a film with five, ten, or twenty, or perhaps even fifty votes can be with confidence classsed as underrated.
You seem to be unaware of how the rating typically changes with additional votes. A movie with 5-50 votes generally has a much higher rating than the same movie with more votes. The first voters are usually the most enthusiastic (or they were even part of the production), leading to a higher average rating than the movie will have later on (should it get more votes).
So it‘s already naturally much harder for a movie with few votes to be (rating-wise) underrated. So, if a movie with few voters already has a low rating, this is really significant and meaningful as we have to expect the rating to drop even further with additional votes. If you happen to highly value such movie, it would therefore make sense to call it underrated.
Yes, I think you are probably correct. I thought something like a minimum vote count might be necessary if we were going the route of underrated (rating-wise). On reflection, it's probably best to leave it up to the discretion of voters. I wasn't so much thinking of unheralded masterpieces (that haven't reached an audience outside their country of origin, for whatever reason) in my original comment (although perhaps I should have been!) but rather films in the 4.5-6.5 range with under a hundred votes. I would be hesitant to bracket such films as under-rated, rating-wise.

It' might well be best if it's left up to the individual to choose and separate the wheat from the chaff. It's probably fairest to do that and it cuts down on the work involved.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1280
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#91

Post by cinewest » November 30th, 2019, 8:16 am

There are quite a few very underrated films with on one or two official lists (my own 500<400 list is full of them), and a list already exists for "favorite films with on no lists," many of which are not so "underrated" in my book, so I'm against criteria that eliminates all films that are already on a list, though I do agree that criteria should be set that discourages a duplicate of the "500 < 400," as well as "Favorite films on no lists."

As for imdb ratings, there are a lot of excellent films with a rating below 7 (as well as between 7 and 7.3) that I would call underrated, though some of them are simply divisive, usually because of content that is offensive to enough people to drag them down (the same is true of many very, artistic FL films that large number of people can't get into- Lucrecia Martel has made only one film that has cracked 7 on imdb, and I would call all of them underrated), while at the same time they are absolutely loved by a large group of people, as well (1 + 10 averages to 5.5)

A third issue to consider has to do with whose perspective is being considered in relation to the term "underrated." Are we talking about "underrated" in the eyes of the public at large, the critics, or the people who participate in the polls, here, as each are substantially different.

Not sure what the answer is, but I hope I've provided more to chew on.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8423
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#92

Post by Lonewolf2003 » November 30th, 2019, 12:01 pm

The third issue is under the biggest question we have to settle still. Personally I think we should go for movies that are underrated by the public and also haven’t been received well by the critics.

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1280
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#93

Post by cinewest » November 30th, 2019, 7:54 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
November 30th, 2019, 12:01 pm
The third issue is under the biggest question we have to settle still. Personally I think we should go for movies that are underrated by the public and also haven’t been received well by the critics.
Many times it’s one or the other, and a perfect example is the 2019 Sight and Sound List where The Souvenir is number 1, but on IMDb sits at 6.5, and their list is riddled with similar discords.

Might also be interesting to create an “overrated” list, here, though the same discord between the critics and the public exist, especially around certain kinds of movies

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24168
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#94

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » November 30th, 2019, 8:41 pm

I have 97 feature films rated 9 or 10 on imdb with an imdb score of 6.9 or below. They're mostly a bunch of noirs and divisive arthouse films. There are bunch here I would obviously not call underrated (Ceddo, Tree of Life) but there are a whole lot of others that I guess you could but feels weird to do so. I need some criteria because while I can tell that well known recent movie Sucker Punch is not well regarded I have no idea if Cutter's Way or Time Without Pity or 7 Women or even recentish films like Paranoid Park or Innocence should be considered underrated. All are films with positive critical reception, but not quite enough to be super well regarded and I guess that makes them underrated from my perspective if they're top 1000 movies for me, but that doesn't really feel like an appropriate designation when I heard of all of them through positive critical references.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8423
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#95

Post by Lonewolf2003 » December 1st, 2019, 2:17 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
November 30th, 2019, 8:41 pm
I have 97 feature films rated 9 or 10 on imdb with an imdb score of 6.9 or below. They're mostly a bunch of noirs and divisive arthouse films. There are bunch here I would obviously not call underrated (Ceddo, Tree of Life) but there are a whole lot of others that I guess you could but feels weird to do so. I need some criteria because while I can tell that well known recent movie Sucker Punch is not well regarded I have no idea if Cutter's Way or Time Without Pity or 7 Women or even recentish films like Paranoid Park or Innocence should be considered underrated. All are films with positive critical reception, but not quite enough to be super well regarded and I guess that makes them underrated from my perspective if they're top 1000 movies for me, but that doesn't really feel like an appropriate designation when I heard of all of them through positive critical references.
I understand your problem, but it will be very hard to set hard criteria for critical reception. We could use Rotten tomatoes or Metacritic, but I believe they do a far lesser job in assessing the critical reception for older movie and for the lesser known ones they probably don't even have a rating.

(So party also in reaction to cinewest above:) I think we are looking here for movies that are underrated by the public. I don't think we are interested in movies that are rated high by the public but were underrated by critics. The question is what to do with movies that were underrated by the public but rated highly by critics. Since it's difficult to set a criteria for that, I feel it's best to leave it up to the voters themselves to decide if they consider a movie with a low IMDb rating not underrated after all.

I will try to write a concept for the OP for the nominations topic later today or tomorrow to see if it reflects the consensus about what we are looking for.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30924
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#96

Post by joachimt » December 1st, 2019, 3:19 pm

Good luck with writing down the consensus. :unsure:
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"


User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8423
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#98

Post by Lonewolf2003 » December 3rd, 2019, 3:22 pm

This is the OP I want to use for the nominations topic. How do you people feel about this?

"
For this poll we are going to choose our Most Underrated Movies, (- Or is Favorite Underrated better?). With underrated are meant movies you feel don't get the appreciation by the "general" public you feel it deserves. Ways to determine that is f.e. to look at the IMDb rating*. An IMDb rating of 6.9 is average, so movies with a rating below that can be considered underrated. Therefor it's recommended you use this IMDb rating (or an equivalent on other sites) as your guideline. Of course it's possible you feel a movie with a higher rating is underrated still. To give an even better inside into if a movie is underrated it's advised you compare your rating with the IMDb one (or the site you use).
*There are a lot of criticism one can have about IMDb ratings, but it's the best tool available to estimate the rating of a movie by the public.

There might be movies that have a low appreciation by the public (i.o.w. have a low rating) that does get a lot of appreciation by other groups, like critics or your fellow forum users. It's left to your own judgement if you consider those underrated. Of course you are free to ask for advice from others about this in this topic.

What we clearly are not looking for in this poll is hidden gems, so if a movie has very little checks or votes you should ask yourself if it's really underrated or just underseen.

I will keep the right to remove movies from the final list or to disqualify whole lists after consultation with others here.

Movies from 2018 and 2019 are ineligible, because they are too recent to have a representative rating yet.
"


User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3666
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#100

Post by Fergenaprido » December 3rd, 2019, 4:01 pm

Yeah, looks good.
I don't have a preference for the title of the list, but to me they convey two different things, so I guess it depends on what you want to go with.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8423
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#101

Post by Lonewolf2003 » December 3rd, 2019, 4:25 pm

Fergenaprido wrote:
December 3rd, 2019, 4:01 pm
Yeah, looks good.
I don't have a preference for the title of the list, but to me they convey two different things, so I guess it depends on what you want to go with.
To me they convey different things also. Favorite are all your underrated movies ranked by how much you like them, Most them ranked by how much you think they are underrated.
Personally I'm for Most. How do other feel?

User avatar
Carmel1379
Donator
Posts: 4494
Joined: Feb 21, 2014
Location: ∅ ⋁ ⋀ ∞ | myself am Hell
Contact:

#102

Post by Carmel1379 » December 3rd, 2019, 4:34 pm

"Movies from 2018 and 2019 are ineligible, because they are too recent to have a representative rating yet." - I'd like to mention that for example The Beach Bum has over 12,000 and In the Tall Grass close to 30,000 user ratings, both with averages 5.5 and highly unlikely to surpass 6.9 ever. In this case the rating is definitely representative of what the "general" public thinks. Due to the Internet and films being released on, say, Netflix, the public opinion about some given film is known much faster than in the past, and moreover I suspect that IMDb users are more likely to rate new releases than older ones anyway, so I don't see why 2018-19 films shouldn't be counted for this particular poll, where widely seen but underrated films are what we're looking for.

IMDb's Advanced Title Search allows the option to include a minimum user rating, perhaps that could be used as a restricting factor instead.
IMDb, letterboxd
Image
whom shall we find
Sufficient? who shall tempt with wand’ring feet
The dark unbottom’d infinite Abyss,
And through the palpable obscure find out
His uncouth way, or spread his aerie flight,
Upborn with indefatigable wings,
Over the vast abrupt, ere he arrive
The happy Ile?


Well here he is skidded out onto the Zone like a planchette on a Ouija board, and what shows up inside the empty circle in his brain might string together into a message, might not, he'll just have to see.

Nur dein Auge – ungeheuer / Blickt michs an, Unendlichkeit!
t o B e c o n t i n u e d

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3666
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#103

Post by Fergenaprido » December 3rd, 2019, 5:53 pm

Carmel1379 wrote:
December 3rd, 2019, 4:34 pm
"Movies from 2018 and 2019 are ineligible, because they are too recent to have a representative rating yet." - I'd like to mention that for example The Beach Bum has over 12,000 and In the Tall Grass close to 30,000 user ratings, both with averages 5.5 and highly unlikely to surpass 6.9 ever. In this case the rating is definitely representative of what the "general" public thinks. Due to the Internet and films being released on, say, Netflix, the public opinion about some given film is known much faster than in the past, and moreover I suspect that IMDb users are more likely to rate new releases than older ones anyway, so I don't see why 2018-19 films shouldn't be counted for this particular poll, where widely seen but underrated films are what we're looking for.

IMDb's Advanced Title Search allows the option to include a minimum user rating, perhaps that could be used as a restricting factor instead.
I think it keeps it in line with our <400 and 0 official list polls.

Even films with a large number of ratings haven't necessarily had the chance to be seen wide a wide array of people in comparison to older films. I've been monitoring the ratings of the top films for the past 15 years, and for 20,000+ films since 2012, and I've noticed a very regular trend that newer films almost always have their average rating change within the first 2-3 years before settling in and being relatively constant. Usually this means a decrease in rating, but sometimes it results in an increase. And it doesn't matter if a film has 1,000, 20,000, or 500,000 ratings - the trend holds true.

Example: Avengers: Infinity War came out in late April 2018 in most countries.
May 1, 2018 - 9.0 from 178,588 votes
May 1, 2019 - 8.5 from 639,695 votes
December 3, 2019 - 8.5 from 728,864 votes
A drop of 0.5 is pretty steep in a year and a half, largely because it was highly rated at the start by it's most voracious fans, and now it's been seen by a wider and wider audience. I think it will drop to 8.4 or 8.3 in the next year and a half before stabilizing there. And I know A:IW doesn't fit the mould of an "underrated film", but I picked a film with a large number of votes to demonstrate my point. Older films with a similar number of ratings don't drop nearly as much. The most I've seen is a 0.2 rise or fall in a film that's <5 years old, otherwise I only see 0.1 incremental changes year on year.

Regarding your specific examples, sure, neither film may ever rise above 6.9 (I think Beach Bum will rise a little and Tall Grass with drop a little), but then you need to start making exceptions for certain films that just happen to have a lot of votes already. I do think it's easier and fairer to exclude all the recent films.

P.S. Incidentally, I stumbled upon https://informationisbeautiful.net/visu ... fallacies/ yesterday and I've been reading up on it bit by bit. I hope I didn't commit any fallacy or rhetoric in my words above. :)

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3524
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#104

Post by Onderhond » December 3rd, 2019, 6:39 pm

While in theory I agree with Carmel1379, I think the rule weeds out a lot of potentially unwanted films and only sacrifies a handful of interesting candidates. So because it's a pragmatic rule and because it won't handicap the films next time around, I don't mind.

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1541
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#105

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » December 3rd, 2019, 7:06 pm

I would go with 'Favourite Underrated'. Everything else is fantastic, I think.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
Carmel1379
Donator
Posts: 4494
Joined: Feb 21, 2014
Location: ∅ ⋁ ⋀ ∞ | myself am Hell
Contact:

#106

Post by Carmel1379 » December 3rd, 2019, 9:52 pm

I'm fine either way, I just don't see the reasons for excluding 2018-19 films and not putting a minimum user rating limit, in the sense that the final results list would be more valuable imo with respect to what's it meant to represent, if, hypothetically, a film released in 2019 with a 5.5 rating from 30,000 users would come up, as opposed to a film released in 1951 with a 6.8 rating from 1,000 users.
IMDb, letterboxd
Image
whom shall we find
Sufficient? who shall tempt with wand’ring feet
The dark unbottom’d infinite Abyss,
And through the palpable obscure find out
His uncouth way, or spread his aerie flight,
Upborn with indefatigable wings,
Over the vast abrupt, ere he arrive
The happy Ile?


Well here he is skidded out onto the Zone like a planchette on a Ouija board, and what shows up inside the empty circle in his brain might string together into a message, might not, he'll just have to see.

Nur dein Auge – ungeheuer / Blickt michs an, Unendlichkeit!
t o B e c o n t i n u e d

Post Reply