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 3 released May 19th)
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 (Jun 4th)

ICMForum's Favourite Movies 2020 Edition RESULTS

500<400, Favourite 1001 movies, Doubling the Canon, Film World Cup and many other votes
Post Reply
tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3546
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

Re: ICMForum's Favourite Movies 2020 Edition RESULTS

#801

Post by tommy_leazaq » April 26th, 2020, 7:57 pm

Great work PA. Thanks.

Can you share the imdb list/id of the top 2000 films, so that I could update my personal list?

User avatar
Lammetje
Donator
Posts: 3740
Joined: Oct 04, 2013
Location: Poland
Contact:

#802

Post by Lammetje » April 26th, 2020, 10:00 pm

Thanks for the countdown, Peacy!
iCM | IMDb | Last.fm | Listal

Image
OldAle1 wrote:stupid double post bullshit crap shit fuck
More memorable quotesShow
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:Active topics is the devil. Please use the forums and subforums as intended and peruse all the topics nicely sorted by topic, not just the currently popular ones displayed in a jumbled mess.
maxwelldeux wrote:If you asked me to kill my wife and pets OR watch Minions, I'd check the runtime and inquire about sobriety requirements before providing an answer.
flaiky wrote::o :satstunned: :guns: :down: :facepalm: :yucky: :mw_confused: :pinch: :ph43r: :ermm: :sweat: :folded: tehe :cowbow: :think: :finger: :rip:
monty wrote:If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. iCM ain't for sissies.
mightysparks wrote:ARGH. RARGH. RARGH. DIE.
Kowry wrote:Thanks, Art Garfunky.
Rich wrote:*runs*

User avatar
PGonzalez
Posts: 354
Joined: Sep 08, 2013
Contact:

#803

Post by PGonzalez » April 28th, 2020, 10:03 pm

Thank you very much Peaceful!

Also, I'm sure this has already been discussed somewhere but I've never seen it brought up: what's the logic behind not limiting list length?

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24701
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#804

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » April 28th, 2020, 10:44 pm

What purpose would it serve? We did restrict it the first two years, but the point system effectively means you get diminishing returns on longer lists, so I was convinced to allow unlimited list length and it seems to be fine to me.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31465
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#805

Post by joachimt » April 29th, 2020, 7:45 am

Indeed, I never understood having a limit on list length.
SpoilerShow
Except for one person though. :whistling:
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
PGonzalez
Posts: 354
Joined: Sep 08, 2013
Contact:

#806

Post by PGonzalez » April 29th, 2020, 8:08 am

1. It's a perverse incentive, since an additional movie in the ballot doesn't involve any kind of trade-off. Adding a film you generally enjoyed but have no strong feelings for at the end of a ranked top 500 won't affect the value of any of your other picks, and you can easily justify it by invoking the point decay. Still, I often see this thrown around as if diminishing returns mean "it will get almost no points", when it doesn't. 13.9 points (the number of points a film would get for getting added to the bottom of a top 500 list) is the difference between #1000 and #963 or #2000 and #1881, which can greatly impact who makes the cut and who doesn't, particularly when you see that some films end up with multiple votes only due to the fact that there are no drawbacks to including it in the list. This will particularly impact popular films, who get an unfair boost in the rankings, overtaking films that are genuinely someone's favorite (e.g. Syndromes and a Century, Eden and After or Gummo, with two/three top fifties and one top ten) simply because they are a film that a lot of people don't mind (e.g. Pickup on South Street, a film whose higher voter had it at place 157 with little over 50 points).

2. Half-life is too high. With a half-life of 175, you will have to reach a list length of 583 before you stop giving movies double digit points which, once again, highlight availability instead of favoritism.

3. Implicitly values some users more than others. Take the following list lengths and respective point hauls:

Top 100 - 8273.45
Top 500 - 21805.9
Top 1000 - 24815.4

A user with a top 1000 has a contribution which is valued as three times more important to the overall list than a user who submits a top 100; again, this works as an incentive for the user with the top 100 to pad his list with 900 titles he feels lukewarm about, since that won't affect the point haul of his favorites. Even the difference between a top 500 and a top 1000, which seems insignificant, is still a 3000 point difference, almost 40% of the total point haul of a top 100. I know people in this forum like to make fun of PdA's list (total point haul of 25300) and usually use it to make a point for how diminishing returns are important, but, again, they only kick in as a limiting factor at a very high level. He still gets 2.5x more points than a user like mjf, with a list of 132 titles (total point haul of 10300).

4. Goes against precedent - ICM has a lot of lists based on the ranking of individual ballots (Cahiers 100, Cahiers yearly, S&S) and all of them limit ballot length for these reasons.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31465
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#807

Post by joachimt » April 29th, 2020, 8:16 am

But some people have seen 10 times as many movies as others. Can't they submit a list that is 10 times as long? They have a lot more to choose from, so I don't mind if they have more impact on the list than people with less movies seen.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31465
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#808

Post by joachimt » April 29th, 2020, 8:18 am

I agree with you though that the halflife could be lower. I didn't know it was 175. Has it always been that high, PA?
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
PGonzalez
Posts: 354
Joined: Sep 08, 2013
Contact:

#809

Post by PGonzalez » April 29th, 2020, 8:20 am

joachimt wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:16 am
They have a lot more to choose from, so I don't mind if they have more impact on the list than people with less movies seen.
If you're being serious, and if this is a generalized view, then I find it quite concerning.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3905
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#810

Post by Onderhond » April 29th, 2020, 8:49 am

PGonzalez wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:20 am
joachimt wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:16 am
They have a lot more to choose from, so I don't mind if they have more impact on the list than people with less movies seen.
If you're being serious, and if this is a generalized view, then I find it quite concerning.
I don't really disagree, the problem is that some people only submit their 9+ ratings while others don't mind including a bunch of 7s. Then again not everyone rates the same way.

I'm still a fan of max %-based lists, but even those have troubles too and you have to wonder if it's worth the bother in the end.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24701
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#811

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » April 29th, 2020, 9:55 am

joachimt wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:18 am
I agree with you though that the halflife could be lower. I didn't know it was 175. Has it always been that high, PA?
Yes it has always been the same. It was chosen to make the 1000th film roughly 1 point.
PGonzalez wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:08 am
Still, I often see this thrown around as if diminishing returns mean "it will get almost no points", when it doesn't. 13.9 points (the number of points a film would get for getting added to the bottom of a top 500 list)

2. Half-life is too high. With a half-life of 175, you will have to reach a list length of 583 before you stop giving movies double digit points which, once again, highlight availability instead of favoritism.
OK, so before continuing (tomorrow as I should have been asleep hours ago) let me say you and I have different ideas of what a "long" list is. When there was a limit, it was 1000 films. I know some people submit very short lists, but a significant number of people submit long lists (43 500+, 26 750+, 15 1000+).
Most of those people, including myself, are submitting favourites. I only submit films I've rated 9 or above. I think they're all great films and there are many very good films I don't include on my list.
PGonzalez wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:20 am
joachimt wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:16 am
They have a lot more to choose from, so I don't mind if they have more impact on the list than people with less movies seen.
If you're being serious, and if this is a generalized view, then I find it quite concerning.
I don't see it as more impact, I see it as proportional impact. Let's say a person has seen 3000 films and votes for 500. A few years later they've seen 5000, now if they still have to vote for only 500 a bunch of those films that used to be on their list, that they like just as much, get pushed off because they've seen more. Is that fair? If yes, why was it fair for them to have been voted for before?
Now, not everyone voting for 1000 films has seen the same number of films and I don't check what proportion of films watched they vote for, but trusting that what people vote for are actually favourites seems a fairer solution than setting a list length limit.
Onderhond wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:49 am
I'm still a fan of max %-based lists, but even those have troubles too and you have to wonder if it's worth the bother in the end.
I would favour this, but enforcing it would be a tremendous pain in the ass and I doubt it would be worthwhile.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3879
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#812

Post by Fergenaprido » April 29th, 2020, 11:31 am

PGonzalez wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:08 am
2. Half-life is too high. With a half-life of 175, you will have to reach a list length of 583 before you stop giving movies double digit points which, once again, highlight availability instead of favoritism.
What would a more appropriate half-life be to come up with a good list 1000 films long? Based on PA's explanation of the 1000th place film getting 1 point, I'm okay with that, but also curious about other suggestions.
PGonzalez wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:08 am
3. Implicitly values some users more than others. Take the following list lengths and respective point hauls:

Top 100 - 8273.45
Top 500 - 21805.9
Top 1000 - 24815.4

A user with a top 1000 has a contribution which is valued as three times more important to the overall list than a user who submits a top 100; again, this works as an incentive for the user with the top 100 to pad his list with 900 titles he feels lukewarm about, since that won't affect the point haul of his favorites. Even the difference between a top 500 and a top 1000, which seems insignificant, is still a 3000 point difference, almost 40% of the total point haul of a top 100. I know people in this forum like to make fun of PdA's list (total point haul of 25300) and usually use it to make a point for how diminishing returns are important, but, again, they only kick in as a limiting factor at a very high level. He still gets 2.5x more points than a user like mjf, with a list of 132 titles (total point haul of 10300).
I don't think I've ever looked at it this way, in terms of how many of my points I contributed to the list, and I'd be surprised if others looked at it this way too. I don't think there is an incentive for the 100-film user to pad their list with lukewarm titles, because by doing so it help those titles jump ahead of films in their top 100, and potentially push them out of the list altogether. I've seen this happen before in our other polls (for example, in the Canada poll, one of my absolute favourites just missed the cut because one of my favourites-but-not-quite-favourites-but-still-way-better-than-lukewarm films was toward the end of my ballot and thus gained a few points to pull ahead).

For this poll (and I suppose more or less for our other polls too), I use the length of the final list as a guideline for the length of my submission. If it's something I know little about, my list will probably we way shorter than the final list. If it's something I've seen a lot from, or a general poll like this one, if my personal list starts getting longer than the final list, I start to question the inclusion of those later films. i.e. If we're putting together a list of our favourite 1000 films, I see no problem with people submitting a list 1000 films long. My list is actually a bit longer (1100-1200 or so), and while I do cull the list each year, I don't mind going a bit over because there are some films I know I'll be the only voter, and if my few points help a great film near the bottom of my list move a few places higher or just make the bottom of the list, I'm happy.

Yes, users definitely track how many of their voted films made the final list, as evidence by all the post-reveal stats people share, but for me it's more of a reflection on how similar my taste is to the forum as a whole, as opposed to trying to get as many films on the final list as possible; if that were the case, I'd just list the previous year's results as my list (filtering out the ones I hadn't seen) as my own list, as that would have the best chance (aside from waiting for everyone else to post their lists, downloading them all and running the poll yourself privately, and then using the results there to come up with your own personal list :P ) of having as much overlap between your list and the final list. Besides, the point haul only really matters if the films you chose are also chosen by others — I believe the vast majority of PdA's 25300 points is "wasted" on films where he is the only voter.
PGonzalez wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:08 am
4. Goes against precedent - ICM has a lot of lists based on the ranking of individual ballots (Cahiers 100, Cahiers yearly, S&S) and all of them limit ballot length for these reasons.
I think you're trying to say it goes against convention, not precedent. In this forum's case, the precedent was set early on that there were no limits to lists, as far as I know (Peaceful posted while I was composing this post) the precedent was set to have a limit, and then that precedent was overturned in favour of no limit, thus setting a new precedent. Knowing how this forum operates, I can imagine it wasn't a simple discussion, involving plenty of back and forth and probably a few polls as well :D . It may be convention for other publications to limit the number of films on each ballot, and I see it as a valid argument, I just personally don't find it compelling.

I do agree, though, that this list should reflect our actual favourite films, and not just those that most of us have seen and kind of like.

User avatar
PGonzalez
Posts: 354
Joined: Sep 08, 2013
Contact:

#813

Post by PGonzalez » April 30th, 2020, 12:40 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 9:55 am
OK, so before continuing (tomorrow as I should have been asleep hours ago) let me say you and I have different ideas of what a "long" list is. When there was a limit, it was 1000 films. I know some people submit very short lists, but a significant number of people submit long lists (43 500+, 26 750+, 15 1000+).
Most of those people, including myself, are submitting favourites. I only submit films I've rated 9 or above. I think they're all great films and there are many very good films I don't include on my list.
Well, we clearly have very different definitions of favorites. A lot of people seem to assume that this a list where we just name the films that we consider very good, whereas I find that there is a very clear difference between a personal canon (which is what a list with 1000 titles is, like Rosenbaum's) and a smaller list of those that personally resonate with you more than the others (which is what Rosenabum's list of 100 inside that canon is). I really enjoyed The Life Cinematic's format of limiting their submissions to 100 titles, and I believe something like that would mirror the forum's taste much more than the current everything goes format. Hell, even my submission (~300) was huge, and very far from what I think a list of favorites should be.
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 9:55 am
I don't see it as more impact, I see it as proportional impact. Let's say a person has seen 3000 films and votes for 500. A few years later they've seen 5000, now if they still have to vote for only 500 a bunch of those films that used to be on their list, that they like just as much, get pushed off because they've seen more. Is that fair? If yes, why was it fair for them to have been voted for before?
Now, not everyone voting for 1000 films has seen the same number of films and I don't check what proportion of films watched they vote for, but trusting that what people vote for are actually favourites seems a fairer solution than setting a list length limit.
Of course it is fair, a favorite is a mutable concept and is by definition established against a larger body, and not in a vacuum. A favorite forces a choice, which is something that I find noticeably absent from the current format, and that is why when there is a complete lack of constraints the concept of favorite devolves into something that seems very uninteresting. That's why places like S&S limit the contribution of a critic who has seen, say, 3000 films, and 10 years later, once the critic has doubled that tally, limit it again to the same number (10). A larger pool to choose from is certainly a plus for whoever is choosing, but it doesn't suddenly increase his choice's value; if a list isn't limited, I fear it ends up meaning nothing once it is aggregated.
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 9:55 am
Onderhond wrote:
April 29th, 2020, 8:49 am
I'm still a fan of max %-based lists, but even those have troubles too and you have to wonder if it's worth the bother in the end.
I would favour this, but enforcing it would be a tremendous pain in the ass and I doubt it would be worthwhile.
Again, I find this extremely troubling, as it seems to derive from something that this forum tends to be criticized for (equating number of checks with clout). A max%-based list would mean that someone who droningly consumes media, like RonJensen seems to do, would have an approximately four/five times greater impact on the list than someone who takes the time to process the film and share their analysis with the community, like prodigalgodson or cinewest. I'm not really sure how a forum's favorites list can be built without recognizing each member's input as equally important.


@Fergenaprido, I used the word precedent because this is a best movies list made by people who bond over their love of best movies list, and the examples I gave were those of lists that were around before this project started; but convention might have been less confusing :)
Fergenaprido wrote:I do agree, though, that this list should reflect our actual favourite films, and not just those that most of us have seen and kind of like.
Yeah, this is what it boils down to, though I understand that for most users of this forum, who tend to spend a lot of time curating their list of favorites, this might seem like something that would suddenly make their efforts worthless, and would therefore create quite a bit of backlash.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3905
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#814

Post by Onderhond » April 30th, 2020, 12:58 pm

PGonzalez wrote:
April 30th, 2020, 12:40 pm
Yeah, this is what it boils down to, though I understand that for most users of this forum, who tend to spend a lot of time curating their list of favorites, this might seem like something that would suddenly make their efforts worthless, and would therefore create quite a bit of backlash.
As someone who puts quite a lot of effort in my toplist, that wouldn't bother me at all really. I use my own cut-off to determine what I consider a favorite, but once you have a full list, submitting to a smaller cut-offs is really the easiest thing in the world :D

The example of S&S on the other hand is badly chosen, as it seems to create a canon-like list rather than a list of favorites.

User avatar
PGonzalez
Posts: 354
Joined: Sep 08, 2013
Contact:

#815

Post by PGonzalez » April 30th, 2020, 2:04 pm

Onderhond wrote:
April 30th, 2020, 12:58 pm
As someone who puts quite a lot of effort in my toplist, that wouldn't bother me at all really. I use my own cut-off to determine what I consider a favorite, but once you have a full list, submitting to a smaller cut-offs is really the easiest thing in the world :D

The example of S&S on the other hand is badly chosen, as it seems to create a canon-like list rather than a list of favorites.
Sure, I didn't say it wasn't easy to submit a smaller cutoff, I just said most people would probably find it rather hurtful :P

And the S&S is a bit more nuanced than that, because I think you confuse how people approach it and what it ends up being. S&S is the main source of canon for most cinephiles, both because of its history and source credibility; still, when you look at the individual ballots and each voter's individual notes, you'll see that they vote for their favorites and often go to great lengths to justify each one and list many others that almost made the cut but didn't quite. Most of the people they invite are people whose favorites align with what ends up being the canon (and, once it is canon, that's the base of what future critics/directors end up watching, creating a cyclically reinforced list). Still, the fact that it is canon doesn't mean that they aren't favorites. But that's why I gave the example of the Life Cinematic, which probably aligns better with this forum :)

User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 587
Joined: Sep 23, 2015
Contact:

#816

Post by Teproc » April 30th, 2020, 2:18 pm

S&S voting has the explicit restriction of not repeating directors, and when you restrict to 10, people start thinking about picking films that represent something, like "I have to have one silent film" or "I have to have a Japanese film" or whatever. It's an interesting process, but not one that lends itself to a favorites list, I feel.

User avatar
PGonzalez
Posts: 354
Joined: Sep 08, 2013
Contact:

#817

Post by PGonzalez » April 30th, 2020, 3:22 pm

Teproc wrote:
April 30th, 2020, 2:18 pm
S&S voting has the explicit restriction of not repeating directors, and when you restrict to 10, people start thinking about picking films that represent something, like "I have to have one silent film" or "I have to have a Japanese film" or whatever. It's an interesting process, but not one that lends itself to a favorites list, I feel.
I was just browsing through some ballots and Dimitri Eipides has two Hitchcocks, Coppola has two Scorseses and two Kurosawas and Woody Allen has two Fellinis, so I'm not really seeing that restriction being applied. The representativeness might be an issue, sure, though you don't really see it in most ballots, but I never really suggested we used S&S's system, so this seems like a moot point (I used S&S to illustrate how it is perfectly logical that members of a polled community have equal input, regardless of the number of stuff that they have seen). Like I said, I quite like The Life Cinematic's method of using top 100s, and I feel it would probably work well here.

User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 587
Joined: Sep 23, 2015
Contact:

#818

Post by Teproc » April 30th, 2020, 4:02 pm

Huh, I always heard there was a one-director restriction, my bad then.

I feel like top100 is a bit small, but I wouldn't mind it all that much.

mathiasa
Posts: 2515
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#819

Post by mathiasa » May 10th, 2020, 8:02 pm

Does someone maintain the TOP 2000 list on imdb? I'm asking because I would like to like to it on the index page. (And if someone maintains a list that is even a bigger expansion, like TOP 3000 this would be even better. But I understand that there's a practical limit to list length on icm, so we can't have a full list. But just as much as possible would be great).

Also, does someone maintain a sheet with all results that could be linked to? Asking for the same reason.

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3546
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#820

Post by tommy_leazaq » May 12th, 2020, 7:08 pm

My list that consists of every Winner + Runner of our poll since the inception of the fav film poll in 2012, The Ultimate Canon, has been updated.

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/the+ ... my_leazaq/

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3546
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#821

Post by tommy_leazaq » May 12th, 2020, 7:12 pm

I know The Birth of a Nation (1915) is not among the forum favorites but would like to know how it has been faring in our polls. It seems to be the only huge old classic that is not found anywhere near our poll.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11241
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#822

Post by mjf314 » May 12th, 2020, 7:36 pm

tommy_leazaq wrote:
May 12th, 2020, 7:12 pm
I know The Birth of a Nation (1915) is not among the forum favorites but would like to know how it has been faring in our polls. It seems to be the only huge old classic that is not found anywhere near our poll.
Here's a list of the highest ranked films on TSPDT that are not in the iCM Forum's top 2000:
Top 50Show
167. The River (1951)
183. Beiqíng chéngshì (1989)
211. Deus e o Diabo na Terra do Sol (1964)
275. Love Streams (1984)
281. Husbands (1970)
289. The Birth of a Nation (1915)
301. Killer of Sheep (1978)
307. Xi meng ren sheng (1993)
320. Terra em Transe (1967)
327. El sol del membrillo (1992)
333. Wanda (1970)
345. Listen to Britain (1942)
353. Huang tu di (1984)
356. Stromboli, terra di Dio (1950)
357. Marnie (1964)
362. Lola Montès (1955)
363. Salvatore Giuliano (1962)
366. Las Hurdes (1933)
385. Le crime de Monsieur Lange (1936)
387. Oktyabr (1927)
392. Dont Look Back (1967)
397. À nos amours (1983)
399. Tristana (1970)
407. Novecento (1976)
408. Vidas Secas (1963)
422. Man of Aran (1934)
426. Le chagrin et la pitié (1969)
439. Hai shang hua (1998)
444. The Dead (1987)
449. Senso (1954)
454. La hora de los hornos: Notas y testimonios sobre el neocolonialismo, la violencia y la liberación (1968)
456. Some Came Running (1958)
470. Chelsea Girls (1966)
479. Grey Gardens (1975)
483. Triumph des Willens (1935)
487. Chronique d'un été (Paris 1960) (1961)
511. Masculin féminin (1966)
513. La terra trema (1948)
516. Le diable probablement (1977)
520. La caduta degli dei (Götterdämmerung) (1969)
530. Splendor in the Grass (1961)
536. Juventude Em Marcha (2006)
544. Miracolo a Milano (1951)
545. Lola (1961)
549. Wagon Master (1950)
550. La prise de pouvoir par Louis XIV (1966)
558. No Quarto da Vanda (2000)
561. Stellet Licht (2007)
564. My Own Private Idaho (1991)
577. La Ciénaga (2001)
I don't know where The Birth of a Nation is ranked in the full list but I guess Peaceful can tell you.

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3546
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#823

Post by tommy_leazaq » May 12th, 2020, 8:39 pm

mjf314 wrote:
May 12th, 2020, 7:36 pm
tommy_leazaq wrote:
May 12th, 2020, 7:12 pm
I know The Birth of a Nation (1915) is not among the forum favorites but would like to know how it has been faring in our polls. It seems to be the only huge old classic that is not found anywhere near our poll.
Here's a list of the highest ranked films on TSPDT that are not in the iCM Forum's top 2000:
Top 50Show
167. The River (1951)
183. Beiqíng chéngshì (1989)
211. Deus e o Diabo na Terra do Sol (1964)
275. Love Streams (1984)
281. Husbands (1970)
289. The Birth of a Nation (1915)
301. Killer of Sheep (1978)
307. Xi meng ren sheng (1993)
320. Terra em Transe (1967)
327. El sol del membrillo (1992)
333. Wanda (1970)
345. Listen to Britain (1942)
353. Huang tu di (1984)
356. Stromboli, terra di Dio (1950)
357. Marnie (1964)
362. Lola Montès (1955)
363. Salvatore Giuliano (1962)
366. Las Hurdes (1933)
385. Le crime de Monsieur Lange (1936)
387. Oktyabr (1927)
392. Dont Look Back (1967)
397. À nos amours (1983)
399. Tristana (1970)
407. Novecento (1976)
408. Vidas Secas (1963)
422. Man of Aran (1934)
426. Le chagrin et la pitié (1969)
439. Hai shang hua (1998)
444. The Dead (1987)
449. Senso (1954)
454. La hora de los hornos: Notas y testimonios sobre el neocolonialismo, la violencia y la liberación (1968)
456. Some Came Running (1958)
470. Chelsea Girls (1966)
479. Grey Gardens (1975)
483. Triumph des Willens (1935)
487. Chronique d'un été (Paris 1960) (1961)
511. Masculin féminin (1966)
513. La terra trema (1948)
516. Le diable probablement (1977)
520. La caduta degli dei (Götterdämmerung) (1969)
530. Splendor in the Grass (1961)
536. Juventude Em Marcha (2006)
544. Miracolo a Milano (1951)
545. Lola (1961)
549. Wagon Master (1950)
550. La prise de pouvoir par Louis XIV (1966)
558. No Quarto da Vanda (2000)
561. Stellet Licht (2007)
564. My Own Private Idaho (1991)
577. La Ciénaga (2001)
I don't know where The Birth of a Nation is ranked in the full list but I guess Peaceful can tell you.
Thanks mj, for the list.

I wasnt talking about this edition but the all editions. My list , Ultimate Canon, is compiled from all winners and runners posted from 2012 and Birth of Nation wasnt found anywhere near. All the films that was higher than Birth of Nation in the list you have provided had found a place in my list in one of the years, except Black God White Devil (9 official lists) which I would consider a bit less popular than Birth of Nation (21 lists). In fact, Birth is the highest official list holder that wasnt present in our winner+runner list ever. I initially doubted it would be Snow White 1937 (25 lists), which is a average film and hasnt aged that well and only relevant today because of its historical context. But no, it was also present in our poll.

So yeah, I would like to see the yearly rankings of Birth of a Nation. Hopefully Peaceful would provide the data.

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

#824

Post by weirdboy » May 12th, 2020, 10:58 pm

tommy_leazaq wrote:
May 12th, 2020, 7:08 pm
My list that consists of every Winner + Runner of our poll since the inception of the fav film poll in 2012, The Ultimate Canon, has been updated.

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/the+ ... my_leazaq/
Considering the size of the list I am surprised to discover that I've seen over 80% of them already.

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3546
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#825

Post by tommy_leazaq » May 21st, 2020, 8:33 pm

weirdboy wrote:
May 12th, 2020, 10:58 pm
tommy_leazaq wrote:
May 12th, 2020, 7:08 pm
My list that consists of every Winner + Runner of our poll since the inception of the fav film poll in 2012, The Ultimate Canon, has been updated.

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/the+ ... my_leazaq/
Considering the size of the list I am surprised to discover that I've seen over 80% of them already.
It mostly consists of popular, well known , canonical films selected by our forum members, so its no wonder. Even a casual film watcher like me have seen more than 50%.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3879
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#826

Post by Fergenaprido » May 22nd, 2020, 6:12 am

tommy_leazaq wrote:
May 21st, 2020, 8:33 pm
weirdboy wrote:
May 12th, 2020, 10:58 pm
tommy_leazaq wrote:
May 12th, 2020, 7:08 pm
My list that consists of every Winner + Runner of our poll since the inception of the fav film poll in 2012, The Ultimate Canon, has been updated.

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/the+ ... my_leazaq/
Considering the size of the list I am surprised to discover that I've seen over 80% of them already.
It mostly consists of popular, well known , canonical films selected by our forum members, so its no wonder. Even a casual film watcher like me have seen more than 50%.
I'm only at 42% :p
Also, as an active partcipant on this forum and someone who ranks in the top 1000, I'm not sure you qualify as a casual viewer anymore, hehe.

Post Reply