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 11 released July 24th)
Polls: 0 Official Lists (Results), 1960 (Aug 9th), Romance (Aug 28th)
Challenges: German/Austrian/Swiss, <400, 1970s
Film of the Week: Der Fan, September nominations (Aug 28th)
World Cup S4: Match 2H: India vs Cuba (Aug 16th), QF Preparation (Aug 25th)

Doubling the Canon 2021 - Improvement suggestions

500<400, Favourite 1001 movies, Doubling the Canon, Film World Cup and many other votes
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11374
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

Re: Doubling the Canon 2021 - Improvement suggestions

#41

Post by mjf314 » May 14th, 2020, 8:43 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 8:29 pm
No, a film with only three votes wouldn't make the list, but a film with 5 might with mjf's numbers. It all depends on which numbers you pick. If you used a real average like 3 you'd need the number of missing votes to be a lot more than mjf's proposed 4 (something like 8-15 depending on how much you want to hamper low voted films) for the formula to be meaningfully useful.
In the sample list that I posted, some 3-vote films did make the top 1000 (but all 3 ratings were 6). When I get home, I can post more sample lists using different numbers. If I remember correctly, if you use 5 instead of 4, then the 3-vote films drop out of the top 1000.

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4383
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#42

Post by Dolwphin » May 14th, 2020, 9:10 pm

Wonky thread that I didn't meticulously read :P , but my simple opinion is...

* Name: DTC
* Canon: They Shoot Pictures Don't They Top 1000
* Nominations: 7 per nominator + DTC-holdovers
* Ex-Canon titles are not eligible to be nominated until being excluded for a second year
* Films from 2012-2022 should not be eligible
* Rating system: 0-6
* Threshold: 20 % (4.00) | 15 % (4.25) | 10 % (4.50) [Holdover: >4.00 rating with at least 5 %]
* Adjustment for popularity: Yes
* Re-voting: After 5 years
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

edward5
Posts: 304
Joined: Aug 03, 2013
Contact:

#43

Post by edward5 » May 14th, 2020, 9:26 pm

mjf314 wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 8:21 pm
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 8:04 pm
I'm not sure how I feel about this kind of system. It assumes that the differences in average are due to how people perceive the rating system rather than due to the quality of the films and genuine opinion. There's certainly some of that, but I'm not sure it's really the biggest cause of the differences.
I was going to say something similar. edward5 is assuming that each person's average enjoyment is about the same, but ratings differ due to different scales. I don't think this assumption is correct.

Suppose there are 2 voters:
Person A watches 100 nominees, but he's very careful to only watch films that he thinks he'll enjoy, and he loves most of them.
Person B watches 100 random nominees, including many from his least favorite genres, and he thinks most of them are meh.

Person A will give a lot of high ratings, and person B will give a lot of low ratings.

edward5's formula normalizes them, so both people end up with the same average rating. That doesn't seem right to me.
I understand your thought. It is damage to adjust their ratings when he rates only a few films.
And It is useful to adjust their ratings when he watches a lot of films.

Lowest average rating of 2020
allisoncm-1,68 with 745 votes
Mothravka-1,87 with 670 votes
Cocoa-1,92
Angel Glez-2,26 with 853 votes
xianjiro-2,27 with 620 votes
72aicm-2,60 with 549 votes
maxwelldeux-2,65
weirdboy-2,68
Ebbywebby-2,71
connordenney-2,73

allisoncm and Mothravka and others, they saw a lot of films. And they are just harsh on rating. I think while allisoncm and mothravka rate a film with 2, it's worth more than 4.
Last edited by edward5 on May 14th, 2020, 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4622
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#44

Post by Onderhond » May 14th, 2020, 9:26 pm

* Canon: ICM official

The rest sound fine to me.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11374
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#45

Post by mjf314 » May 14th, 2020, 10:33 pm

Here's a spreadsheet with 8 different versions of the bayesian list, using different numbers:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... rn/pubhtml

The "unweighted" rating is the adjusted-for-popularity rating, because I don't have the unadjusted ratings.
The "weighted" rating is the bayesian rating.

The first sheet is named "1x3" which means 3 ratings of 1 were added to each film.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30764
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#46

Post by mightysparks » May 15th, 2020, 12:08 am

I find mjf’s lists more interesting and reasonable than the current DtC, though I’m not sure how accurately it represents the ‘goal’ of DtC.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7822
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#47

Post by xianjiro » May 15th, 2020, 2:21 am

sol wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 1:58 pm
mjf314 wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 12:47 pm
@sol: 20% of total participants would have been 18 this year. That seems to me like too much.
It depends what you see the purpose of the list as being.

When lee-109 first proposed the project circa 2005, I recall talk about creating a consensus canon of films that we collectively thought were worthy enough to be in the official TSP canon.

20% could be lowered to 15% - but then do we really have a consensus canon when the list is full of films that 85% of participants have never seen?

I really like this though, which would seem to resolve some of my reservations about how the game has evolved since its inception: :thumbsup:
mjf314 wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 12:47 pm
One possible change is replace "adjustment for popularity" with the bayesian estimate formula, to penalize films with fewer votes. I posted a sample list here:
viewtopic.php?p=640215#p640215
The numbers can be tweaked if you want a bigger or smaller penalty.

The films near the top will be films that a lot of people like. Films with few votes can still make the list, but they need a higher rating.
It seems one of the problems is the disconnect between canonical vs source of hidden gems. For me, I evaluate films based on what I see clearly stated: does this film belong in the TSPDT canon? The implication is that it has been missed or ignored by TSPDT voters and we feel it belongs in an extension of their (the) canon. I gave no 6s because I didn't see anything on that ballot that screamed "How could they have missed this?" For me that criteria is extremely difficult to overcome and likewise relatively few films even score a 5. I'm not saying that the criteria is laid out inappropriately but I think some voters might up or down vote (game the system), but I freely admit that when on the border between a score of say 3 or 2, I will consider a number of things other than strictly voting on canon worthiness, but I don't up or down vote by more than one grade.

But if others approach this project more in line of 500<400 and hope to pack it with their obscure favorites, that's entirely different: obviously one user's canon is another's nightmare. If a user is giving out 50 or 100 6s on their ballot, one really has to wonder if that user isn't being disingenuous with their ratings. Really? You know of that many forgotten spectacularly important influential films that deserve to stand along side the top 600 films on TSPDT? I wonder which 50 films that user would remove from TSPDT and how they'd support such removal.

So, ultimately, are we expanding the canon and using this project to highlight our difference of opinion or trying to pack it with our favorite films which few others have seen?

I support adjust the formula in ways suggested to make it harder for small vote films to make the list (especially higher than say 800).

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

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1656
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#48

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » May 15th, 2020, 2:30 am

I say leave things much as they are, apart from reducing the list to a 1,000-strong.

I love the mixture of the underseen and not but should be canonical that comprises the entries every year, and the quirkiness of the whole undertaking.

I have to admit that all the maths kind of goes over my head. Sadly not my strongpoint!
Last edited by RogerTheMovieManiac88 on May 15th, 2020, 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7822
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#49

Post by xianjiro » May 15th, 2020, 2:35 am

jeff_v wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 6:16 pm
Or you can just rate everything you've seen on a 0-100 scale in Criticker, which makes stuff like this easy.
I've rated over 15,000 items. Are you suggesting that, this late in the game, I go back an rerate everything? Even if it was somehow possible to whittle that number down to "likely candidates", it's still a tall order for someone who's been doing this for decades.

And I don't mean this as a personal critique: just trying to point out that solutions need to reflect the variation in the voters. Maybe if I'd started out on Criticker instead of IMDb it would be different. (celebrating my 20th anniversary on IMDb next year)

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: 7822
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#50

Post by xianjiro » May 15th, 2020, 2:40 am

edward5 wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 7:27 pm
Angel Glez wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 7:04 pm
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Here's a editable spreadsheet with full results (before and after the current adjustment). Maybe you could show us what happens by applying your formulas.
xianjiro's score vote xianjiro's adjustment score
6 0 6.39
5 7 6.35
4 37 6.12
3 190 4.95
2 280 2.54
1 96 0.6
0 10 0.06


It needs to change every individual's score. It's a lot of work. if you sent me all the votes, so i can do it in one day.
:shrug: why me? :shrug: was it because I had the lowest average or something?

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: 7822
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#51

Post by xianjiro » May 15th, 2020, 3:03 am

edward5 wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 9:26 pm


I understand your thought. It is damage to adjust their ratings when he rates only a few films.
And It is useful to adjust their ratings when he watches a lot of films.

Lowest average rating of 2020
allisoncm-1,68 with 745 votes
Mothravka-1,87 with 670 votes
Cocoa-1,92
Angel Glez-2,26 with 853 votes
xianjiro-2,27 with 620 votes
72aicm-2,60 with 549 votes
maxwelldeux-2,65
weirdboy-2,68
Ebbywebby-2,71
connordenney-2,73

allisoncm and Mothravka and others, they saw a lot of films. And they are just harsh on rating. I think while allisoncm and mothravka rate a film with 2, it's worth more than 4.
okay, I wasn't singled out for having the lowest average (didn't think I did but couldn't remember for certain). :folded:

I do take great exception to someone saying "my 2 is really worth a 4". No, I put a great deal of thought into my ballot and my 2 means I see no reason why this film should be considered part of the canon. And just because I didn't like a film or it's far from being a favorite film of mine has much less bearing on canon-worthiness than it's production merits or cultural/cinematic influence.

So, for point of discussion. I saw and rated Romero's Night of the Living Dead years ago. I can't say I liked or enjoyed the film but I rated it a 7 and on my IMDb system that means "average" and thus if it came up for DtC voting, it would likely be a 2 BUT given that I don't remember if I considered it a "strong 7" meaning closer but not over 7.45 or a "weak 7" meaning closer to but not under 6.46 I would look to the IMDb rating of 7.9 (probably less influenced by number of votes, but might consider that as well) and then think back on what I remember of "critical opinion". If not one of these last two but maybe both would lead me to rate the film a 3 on DtC meaning I see it as canon-worthy in some form (which of course it is, currently ranked 241 on TSPDT 1000). And no, I'm not willing to personally call for it to be downvoted, ripped from the canon or anything like that: just because I don't like a film doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be canonical. Being John Malkovich is similar: my rating is 5 on IMDb but I've consistently given it a 3 on DtC ballots simply because I recognize that others view it as an important artistic work.

So no, please don't make any assumption that my X equals another's Y. :folded:

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

User avatar
Cocoa
Donator
Posts: 1834
Joined: Jul 17, 2013
Location: Chicago, USA
Contact:

#52

Post by Cocoa » May 15th, 2020, 5:46 am

I'm okay with TSPDT GF top 1001-2000 being added to the "Canon" and I'm fine with DtC changing to 1000 titles. I'm okay with the rating system. In the rare possibility that the rating system somehow does change, then all films on the DtC should probably be up for a revote. I'm okay with the nominations, threshold, and re-voting after 5 years stuff. And just addressing more stuff in the first post of the thread, I'm obviously fine with the name and the host.

"Adjustment for popularity: For every 10 votes the lowest vote gets dropped" is a rule I never loved and it gets worse as the threshold for number of votes needed (for the film to make it on the DtC) increase. Dropping the lowest vote on films with only 10 votes helps polarizing films that haven't been seen by that many people while it makes it harder for films that reach the number of votes threshold but are still below 10 votes (aka 8-9 vote range) because those films still have their lowest vote and have to compete with films that have their lowest vote dropped. The rule was better when the threshold for number of votes a film needed to get in was lower, but now while the threshold is 8 votes this adjustment for popularity rule just seems too unfair.
For exampleShow
A film with 8 votes receives 6-6-5-5-5-2-2-0 = 3.875 rating and doesn't get in. That film then receives a 4 vote (now the film has 6-6-5-5-5-4-2-2-0 as individual rating votes), making its new rating 3.889 which is still not enough to get in. The film then gets its tenth vote which is a 1 (now the film has 6-6-5-5-5-4-2-2-1-0 as individual rating votes), which results in the 0 rating being dropped and causing the film's adjusted average rating to be 4 which is enough to get in. A film in which 40% of the people think the film shouldn't be included can make the DtC if it has ten votes while a film with the same voting group minus the 1 rating can't make the DtC despite having only 33% of the voters thinking it shouldn't be included.
8 people voting on a film versus 10 people voting on a film is not a big comparison difference (in number of people) in a voting pool while 10 people versus 20 people is a bigger difference but in each case the second group in the comparison has one more vote dropped than the first group. There are several different possible ways to improve this. For example, changing every 10 votes to every 20 votes or every 15 votes; dropping the medium vote instead of the lowest vote; dropping both the highest and lowest votes instead of just the lowest vote; or even something weird like dropping the third lowest vote instead of the lowest vote; or something more extreme like changing the threshold for number of votes needed to make DtC increase from 8 to 10 so every film receives this adjustment for popularity benefit (only 6 films receiving 8 votes and 8 films receiving 9 votes total made it to DtC in the 2020 vote so it wouldn't be a gigantic change overall); or using some sort of voting bayesian estimate formula that have been discussed in this thread which would probably make it fairer (in instances like film receiving 19 votes versus film receiving 20 votes) than it is now.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 4280
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#53

Post by Fergenaprido » May 15th, 2020, 5:50 am

Dolwphin wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 9:10 pm
Wonky thread that I didn't meticulously read :P , but my simple opinion is...

* Nominations: 7 per nominator + DTC-holdovers
* Films from 2012-2022 should not be eligible
* Threshold: 20 % (4.00) | 15 % (4.25) | 10 % (4.50) [Holdover: >4.00 rating with at least 5 %]
Regarding these three opinions...

If we think the nomination list is too big and unwieldy, we could reduce the number of nominations per user, but I would say 7 is too few, and would suggest an even 10.
Excluding the recent decade kind of makes sense, but perhaps 5 years is a more reasonable choice. Right now it's 2 years I believe, but we could freeze the last year at 2018 and add one more year each cycle until we hit 5.
Those threshold ideas are interesting as well.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 4280
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#54

Post by Fergenaprido » May 15th, 2020, 5:55 am

edward5 wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 9:26 pm
mjf314 wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 8:21 pm
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 8:04 pm
I'm not sure how I feel about this kind of system. It assumes that the differences in average are due to how people perceive the rating system rather than due to the quality of the films and genuine opinion. There's certainly some of that, but I'm not sure it's really the biggest cause of the differences.
I was going to say something similar. edward5 is assuming that each person's average enjoyment is about the same, but ratings differ due to different scales. I don't think this assumption is correct.

Suppose there are 2 voters:
Person A watches 100 nominees, but he's very careful to only watch films that he thinks he'll enjoy, and he loves most of them.
Person B watches 100 random nominees, including many from his least favorite genres, and he thinks most of them are meh.

Person A will give a lot of high ratings, and person B will give a lot of low ratings.

edward5's formula normalizes them, so both people end up with the same average rating. That doesn't seem right to me.
I understand your thought. It is damage to adjust their ratings when he rates only a few films.
And It is useful to adjust their ratings when he watches a lot of films.

Lowest average rating of 2020
allisoncm-1,68 with 745 votes
Mothravka-1,87 with 670 votes
Cocoa-1,92
Angel Glez-2,26 with 853 votes
xianjiro-2,27 with 620 votes
72aicm-2,60 with 549 votes
maxwelldeux-2,65
weirdboy-2,68
Ebbywebby-2,71
connordenney-2,73

allisoncm and Mothravka and others, they saw a lot of films. And they are just harsh on rating. I think while allisoncm and mothravka rate a film with 2, it's worth more than 4.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your system edward, I think I grasp it now. :)

I don't agree with your supposition, though, nor with the goal of normalizing everyone's votes. I can't speak for others, but I for one tend to prioritize watching most of the short films nominated, since I can get through more of them. The vast majority of them are experimental films that I generally don't enjoy, and end up rating a 0 or 1. These obviously lower my average, but I don't think that's a problem. I think with your proposal, it discourages people from seeking out films they may potentially dislike, because they think it will penalize the weight of their vote.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24759
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#55

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » May 15th, 2020, 6:20 am

Name: Doubling Expanding the Canon
Host: Angel Glez
Canon: TSPDT GF top 1000 + TSPDT 21st Century top 1000 + TSPDT GF top 1001-2000
Doubling list: 1100 1000 titles
Nominations: 12 films per doubler + TSPDT drop-offs + DtC holdovers
Rating system: 0-6
Adjustment for popularity: For every 10 votes the lowest vote gets dropped (???) TBD
Threshold: 8 votes
Re-voting: After 5 years

I agree with adding the 1001-2000 to the Canon and with bringing the list back to 1000, but I think that merits a tweak to the name. "Expanding" keeps similar connotations to the previous name while being more accurate to what it is. Everything else I think is fine except the adjustment for popularity.

I think something is needed to account for very well liked but very highly watched films and I don't think the current adjustment is enough. I'm still not fully sure what I think it should be, especially not the specifics, but something like the Bayesian Estimate is what I'm leaning towards. The devil's in the details and I'm not sure what the best option is. To me the list was probably strongest around 4 or 5 years ago. I like that there's obscure and weird stuff on the list, and if that gets pushed out then we've gone too far, but I also feel like movies that have been seen by a larger number of people have way too hard a time getting in.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7822
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#56

Post by xianjiro » May 15th, 2020, 7:03 am

How will a decision on which changes will be implemented be made? (Or was this explained and I've forgotten?)

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

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4622
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#57

Post by Onderhond » May 15th, 2020, 8:16 am

xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 2:21 am
I evaluate films based on what I see clearly stated: does this film belong in the TSPDT canon?
Not even sure how I would even play the game by these rules. I'd probably have to upvote a bunch of dislikes because of how the TSPDT canon is defined right now? And I think you'd probably end up with some obscure films, because if you're searching for overlooked important gems, they probably come from obscurer film areas that get little exposure in the West. I guess we could vote in some Nollywood films maybe?

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7822
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#58

Post by xianjiro » May 15th, 2020, 8:38 am

Onderhond wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 8:16 am
Not even sure how I would even play the game by these rules.
😶 not sure what to say - didn't know this was a 'game' and that implies people will likely upvote films they have seen to maintain their standing and downvote things they haven't seen to hurt other 'players'? Guess I'm just foolish in thinking that DtC is a serious undertaking meant to shine attention on films voters feel have been missed by the 'canon' though clearly it's not really a discussion of why this should be canonical and that shouldn't.

What next, every trip to the store or neighboring country is a road rally to be run?

I get that you don't like 'the canon': makes your playing look like you're takin' the piss. :guns:

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

User avatar
Melvelet
Posts: 2104
Joined: Mar 29, 2013
Contact:

#59

Post by Melvelet » May 15th, 2020, 9:09 am

mjf314 wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 10:33 pm
Here's a spreadsheet with 8 different versions of the bayesian list, using different numbers:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... rn/pubhtml

The "unweighted" rating is the adjusted-for-popularity rating, because I don't have the unadjusted ratings.
The "weighted" rating is the bayesian rating.

The first sheet is named "1x3" which means 3 ratings of 1 were added to each film.
Thanks for your work, mjf!
There's a few duplicates and triplicates btw (due to holdovers) - Abendland is on there thrice, Himmel und Erde twice for example. It's probably hard to find the "right" values, especially if we don't want to usw them in a way to have specific movies on the list (which we shouldn't of course). Optimizing on the movie with the lowest amount of votes would be possible - what's the downside? Too much emphasis on number of votes (a problem that the RateYourMusic.com album charts have at the moment)? Although it would also be possible to still combine the function with a threshold, which should not be below 10% of the voters imo

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4622
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#60

Post by Onderhond » May 15th, 2020, 9:23 am

xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 8:38 am
I get that you don't like 'the canon': makes your playing look like you're takin' the piss. :guns:
I simply vote for the films I like.

I don't even understand the point of a more serious "double the canon" exercise, as you have the entirety of ICM that pretty much gives you exactly that. Take the 1000 films with the most official checks not present in whatever TSPDT list you want to include and there you go.

Furthermore, it's just 80 random people on the internet doing this, so it's hardly anything "serious". What "game" implies to me is that people are really doing this for fun, doesn't mean it has to become all tactical and sneaky, just a nice little side project to highlight some personal favorites.

User avatar
Angel Glez
Posts: 2179
Joined: Apr 02, 2012
Location: Spain
Contact:

#61

Post by Angel Glez » May 15th, 2020, 9:33 am

xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 7:03 am
How will a decision on which changes will be implemented be made? (Or was this explained and I've forgotten?)
We are just throwing thoughts. if there were complaints about, say the host, democratic elections would be called. :P

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 2198
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#62

Post by beavis » May 15th, 2020, 9:34 am

xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 2:21 am
It seems one of the problems is the disconnect between canonical vs source of hidden gems.

So, ultimately, are we expanding the canon and using this project to highlight our difference of opinion or trying to pack it with our favorite films which few others have seen
I have always explored cinematic niches, be they trash cult or academic experiments and everything in between. So when I found Doubling, I saw a list curated for me. And it still is. The goal for me is not to find holes in the tspdt canon, especially when that is now 3000 movies, but also not to recommend hidden gems (that is 500<400 territory). It is to promote favorites that i would absolutely put in my personal canon (top100 or top500), but that are apparently too niche in some way to fit in a general canon like tspdt (in my case this can become very similar to 500<400, but i still see a difference). The Doubling is in the creation of a shadow canon.

If a mainstream film nominated is exceptional i will still rate it high, but with others i might think, no they are not good enough for tspdt And they do not fit on what i feel is the flavor of Doubling. And despite some people saying the list has gotten too "weird", there is a lot of stuff in it mainstream movie buffs will love. I felt this year a lot of my favorites got voted down and more mainstream movies actually did good. Of course the list is not perfect to me. Far too many tv-series and shorts get nominated and get in, but i don't think more rules will help there.

Maybe it is good to have this discussion about how people use the rating system, and see the Doubling project. A perfect system will be very hard to built with so many people here having different tastes and ways of valueing movies. I think excluding the tspdt2000 will push Doubling further toward how I percieve and like the list, maybe to counter/ballance that a bit a new weighing system makes sense. I don't want the project to become a weird hidden gems only list with a silent-maffia, experimental-maffia, tv-series-maffia niche support remaining and everyone else turned off. The movies should still be some major recommendations with as much cinephile support as possible.

Because Doubling is not about hidden gems perse for me, I don't feel the need to exclude recent years. Especially because the canon tends to skew old and Doubling already favors silent cinema a lot, I would not mind people focussing on recent cinema and work on cannonizing/championing those titles a bit more.

I do also, like most, favor a round 1000 to be the length of the list
Last edited by beavis on May 15th, 2020, 10:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
jal90
Posts: 76
Joined: May 19, 2019
Contact:

#63

Post by jal90 » May 15th, 2020, 9:39 am

Uhm, as a first time participant my main issue was with having it all solved in two months. The list was over 1300 movies long and I think the most prolific participant voted like 600-700? This way the list doesn't feel representative. A lot of films haven't even met the bare minimum of votes to be counted.

There could be a lot more emphasis on the watching and exploring part of the list, in general. At the end of the nomination period we are just left with very long compilation lists in varied formats and that is useful to send your votes easily but it kind of forgets that your purpose when you nominate something is to get people to watch it, like it, and promoting it to the main list. There is a serious lack of emphasis on that, there are no threads or places where you can recommend specifically (aside from the challenge), track your and others' DtC nominations, and overall there was just a month left to send your ballot when there's hundreds of new entries to explore, a lot of them pretty elusive.

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 2198
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#64

Post by beavis » May 15th, 2020, 9:50 am

Uh, the exploring starts for me when the list is made, not during the making. I have an entire year now to explore both titles that were already on the list and the new ones that made it, of those titles I can be sure they have enough support to make them interesting. During nominations i sometimes seek out movies that were already on my watchlist, or from a single nominator because i already like something else they nominated, but suggesting to really explore everything all nominators put forward before casting votes is undoable and not really the purpose of the project. Again, now is the time when you should dive in and explore!

User avatar
jal90
Posts: 76
Joined: May 19, 2019
Contact:

#65

Post by jal90 » May 15th, 2020, 10:01 am

beavis wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 9:50 am
Uh, the exploring starts for me when the list is made, not during the making. I have an entire year now to explore both titles that were already on the list and the new ones that made it, of those titles I can be sure they have enough support to make them interesting. During nominations i sometimes seek out movies that were already on my watchlist, or from a single nominator because i already like something else they nominated, but suggesting to really explore everything all nominators put forward before casting votes is undoable and not really the purpose of the project. Again, now is the time when you should dive in and explore!
I think they are not incompatible. The DtC picks that make the list are already more or less set, of course eventually they get revoted, but during the voting period the entries need to be promoted in order to have a chance, and that requires giving time to explore because whether they end up in DtC or not depends on a relatively large number of people watching it and rating it highly.

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 2198
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#66

Post by beavis » May 15th, 2020, 10:10 am

Then you should absolutely join the challenge and try to cram in as much movies as possible :)
I don't like that kind of cramming personally, especially with the kind of movies that take a bit of reading to know where they are coming from and a bit of time after to adequately process. So extending that for even a month longer would not be much fun for me. I explore in my own time on my own terms.

You could also take a look at the movies that are now already nominated for next year (dropoffs and revotes) and start seeing as much of them as possible, that will give you a good head start on the next time! I do understand what you are saying, i just don't feel that need myself before joining games or making lists to cram in a bunch of last moment stuff...

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11374
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#67

Post by mjf314 » May 15th, 2020, 12:36 pm

xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:03 am
So, for point of discussion. I saw and rated Romero's Night of the Living Dead years ago. I can't say I liked or enjoyed the film but I rated it a 7 and on my IMDb system that means "average" and thus if it came up for DtC voting, it would likely be a 2 BUT given that I don't remember if I considered it a "strong 7" meaning closer but not over 7.45 or a "weak 7" meaning closer to but not under 6.46 I would look to the IMDb rating of 7.9 (probably less influenced by number of votes, but might consider that as well) and then think back on what I remember of "critical opinion". If not one of these last two but maybe both would lead me to rate the film a 3 on DtC meaning I see it as canon-worthy in some form (which of course it is, currently ranked 241 on TSPDT 1000). And no, I'm not willing to personally call for it to be downvoted, ripped from the canon or anything like that: just because I don't like a film doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be canonical. Being John Malkovich is similar: my rating is 5 on IMDb but I've consistently given it a 3 on DtC ballots simply because I recognize that others view it as an important artistic work.
I think everyone should vote based on their personal taste, not based on which films they think other people like. If the rules make it sound like you shouldn't vote based on personal taste, then I think the rules should be reworded.

In other words, you should vote based on which films you think should be acclaimed, not based on which films you think other people think should be acclaimed.

Imagine if everyone voted based on which films they think other people like. What would be the point of voting? The purpose of the poll is to find out which films people like, and you're one of those people, so why shouldn't your opinion count?

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7822
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#68

Post by xianjiro » May 15th, 2020, 2:37 pm

Onderhond wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 9:23 am
I simply vote for the films I like.
that's good to know.
Onderhond wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 9:23 am
I don't even understand the point of a more serious "double the canon" exercise, as you have the entirety of ICM that pretty much gives you exactly that. Take the 1000 films with the most official checks not present in whatever TSPDT list you want to include and there you go.
Not sure who 'you' is in this paragraph - iCM users or iCM mods - but either way, users don't have a lot of say in what movies make BFI lists, what movies win awards, or what movies Ebert thought "great". So is this meant to imply the mods are using official status in some untoward manner?

I invite you to prove your point by going down this list and share with us the first 100 movies you find which aren't on TSPDT 1000, 2000, nor 21st Century lists to see how those compare with the first 100 movies on DtC. Gosh, with all those Hollywood blockbusters on page 1, I have to wonder just how 'tainted' the canon really is.
Onderhond wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 9:23 am
Furthermore, it's just 80 random people on the internet doing this, so it's hardly anything "serious". What "game" implies to me is that people are really doing this for fun, doesn't mean it has to become all tactical and sneaky, just a nice little side project to highlight some personal favorites.
No, it's not really just 80 random people. It's 80 people who consider themselves interested and informed about cinema (in whole or in part) who enjoy the exercise. I'd love to hear from others in this 'random' group how they feel it's just frivolity and a good laugh to play Let's Double the Canon since its about as meaningful as video poker or joining a fight club: it's all just good fun, right?

If we truly were random in this exercise (and not just a self-selected cohort), as I said before, we'd select 100 iCM users at random and compile some sort of list from their favorites (that aren't on official lists) or preferrably, use their Criticker, IMDb, or whatever ratings to create a list of their highest rated films that aren't on other official lists. That would truly be a random selection of 'unknown' films that would undoubtedly be loads of fun to watch.

For those of who take DtC and 500<400 as well as FotW, World Cup, iCMFF, and challenges seriously - and please forgive me if I didn't mention another project that slipped my mind - yes, it's about the exercises, about exploring, and occasionally about discussing why or why not this or that film is or isn't included in this or that list. Maybe I'm alone in not viewing DtC and other projects as a way to highlight my personal favorites, but guess what, that's what submitting our list of personal favorites is for when this forum collects and compiles it's list of users' favorite films, which, for the record, I support being an official list as well since it is fundamentally different in take to DtC and 500<400. I realize that's my viewpoint and just like voting for members of our representative governments, I like to think that all citizens take that seriously though I know not all of them do - or not up to the standards I chose to employ.

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

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 4280
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#69

Post by Fergenaprido » May 15th, 2020, 2:48 pm

I don't think you're being fair to Onderhond, xianjiro. You're throwing out some accusations that seem baseless to me (or at least poor attempts at humour). Onderhond may be unique in his film tastes, but he's always straightforward about his opinions and participates correctly in projects he chooses to contribute to; I've never seen him behave as a troll or "taking the piss".

I also don't think any of this is an attack on icm mods (or icm users in general). And your call to "prove his point" is misguided: he's referring to films ranked by most official lists, not films ranked by number of checks.

The two of you may have differing opinions on how DTC should be constructed, or how people should participate, but I believe you're both being sincere in your participation and your individual desires to see this list be as good as it could be (under your own definitions).

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11374
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#70

Post by mjf314 » May 15th, 2020, 3:08 pm

xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 2:37 pm
Maybe I'm alone in not viewing DtC and other projects as a way to highlight my personal favorites
If you think DtC is supposed to be a list of other people's favorites, but not your own favorites, then why do you vote? Wouldn't it be more accurate to let other people do the voting?

Or am I misunderstanding you? Are you trying to predict which films other forum members would like (but haven't seen yet)? Or are you trying to predict which films critics would like?

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7822
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#71

Post by xianjiro » May 15th, 2020, 3:09 pm

mjf314 wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 12:36 pm

In other words, you should vote based on which films you think should be acclaimed, not based on which films you think other people think should be acclaimed.

Imagine if everyone voted based on which films they think other people like. What would be the point of voting? The purpose of the poll is to find out which films people like, and you're one of those people, so why shouldn't your opinion count?
Everyone's opinion should absolutely count. However, the fact that I've always loved something like Lust in the Dust doesn't mean it deserves to be canonical - even if I could get two others (or five others) to rate it a 6 no matter what means I had to employ to make that happen (because I can't imagine many would support it willingly). I'm not voting for films that I think others would want in an extension of the canon - I'm using that information as part of my consideration when I think my opinion either not quite firm or when I realize that my viewpoint is vastly different. And even then I'm not giving a movie a 5 because it's what others rate it. (I don't look at other DtC ratings when preparing my ballot nor do I pay attention to who nominated what.)

I think it would be useless to give a bunch of films I 'love' 6s even though they clearly aren't canon worthy. Eight of my top twelve picks for 500<400 aren't on any list, do they deserve to be canonical? I'll have to go through my actual list of favorites and get back to you on the top 12 non-canonical titles so we can discuss how worthy of being canonical those are. No one has ever indicated much interest in my lists though I do believe two films gained a bit of traction in 1000<400 because of being high on my list. Again, does this make them canon-worthy?

If we want an official list of user's favorite movies, I know of two list that do just that. If we want to massage that list to reflect the top rated films that are not currently canonical, then that's a new project we could start but I see it as fundamentally different from either DtC, 500<400, or our collection of favorites (or for that matter, that list of highest rated films a user compiled from our IMDb ratings and published or still publishes on another website).

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

jeff_v
Posts: 1066
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Another Place
Contact:

#72

Post by jeff_v » May 15th, 2020, 3:18 pm

xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 2:35 am
jeff_v wrote:
May 14th, 2020, 6:16 pm
Or you can just rate everything you've seen on a 0-100 scale in Criticker, which makes stuff like this easy.
I've rated over 15,000 items. Are you suggesting that, this late in the game, I go back an rerate everything? Even if it was somehow possible to whittle that number down to "likely candidates", it's still a tall order for someone who's been doing this for decades.

And I don't mean this as a personal critique: just trying to point out that solutions need to reflect the variation in the voters. Maybe if I'd started out on Criticker instead of IMDb it would be different. (celebrating my 20th anniversary on IMDb next year)
It was mostly a sarcastic suggestion, but when I did input my 0-100 ratings the first time, I had several thousand to rate. It took a few weeks, but it was fun to do as it gave me a chance to consider so many films I hadn't given any thought to since the day I saw them. I hardly expect that many people would be willing to rate everything on IMDb, Criticker and Letterboxd, like I do.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7822
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#73

Post by xianjiro » May 15th, 2020, 3:19 pm

jal90 wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 9:39 am
Uhm, as a first time participant my main issue was with having it all solved in two months. The list was over 1300 movies long and I think the most prolific participant voted like 600-700? This way the list doesn't feel representative. A lot of films haven't even met the bare minimum of votes to be counted.
Welcome jal90 and any other first time voters! Glad you joined in. :thumbsup:

I too was (and am) overwhelmed by the ballot's length but like Beavis advises, I view both the current list, the 2021 revotes, and finally the 2021 nominations as starting points. I do better at working through the new additions to the DtC that I haven't seen and the nominations (well, this year I did). I always want to work through the revotes, but I've not had much of a system for doing that. Might do a better job over the next year, but I'll also want to work on other things so no promises. ;) But I don't think I made the list of top voters last year or was it the year before: it's something I've succeeded at mostly by working through DtC and 1000<400 (the unofficial extension to 500<400) since I know both are full of likely nominees. But we all have difficulty finding stuff on these lists, especially if we're new to the grey and black markets of film fandom. (I don't torrent, for example.) So yeah, never going to see everything that gets nominated: it's a fact like the sun rises in the east as far as I'm concerned. So don't feel like you have to watch everything, okay?

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

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11374
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#74

Post by mjf314 » May 15th, 2020, 3:22 pm

xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:09 pm
I'm not voting for films that I think others would want in an extension of the canon - I'm using that information as part of my consideration when I think my opinion either not quite firm or when I realize that my viewpoint is vastly different.
So if I'm understanding correctly, when you rate a film, it's basically the average of your own opinion and other people's opinions?
1. If you vote like this, then your votes only have about half as much weight as other people's votes.
2. If your votes are partially based on the opinions of others, then you're just guessing, which isn't very accurate.
xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:09 pm
I think it would be useless to give a bunch of films I 'love' 6s even though they clearly aren't canon worthy.
Why are they not canon worthy? Just because you think other people won't like them? That's why we vote. If you like a film, but other people don't, then it won't make the list.

What if you guess wrong, and you think people won't like it, but they do like it?
xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:09 pm
Everyone's opinion should absolutely count. However, the fact that I've always loved something like Lust in the Dust doesn't mean it deserves to be canonical - even if I could get two others (or five others) to rate it a 6 no matter what means I had to employ to make that happen (because I can't imagine many would support it willingly).
I don't think we should be voting based on the assumption that people will cheat. If you love it but others don't, then it won't make the list. If you give a higher rating than other people, it doesn't mean that your rating is wrong.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7822
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#75

Post by xianjiro » May 15th, 2020, 3:30 pm

Fergenaprido wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 2:48 pm
I don't think you're being fair to Onderhond, xianjiro. You're throwing out some accusations that seem baseless to me (or at least poor attempts at humour). Onderhond may be unique in his film tastes, but he's always straightforward about his opinions and participates correctly in projects he chooses to contribute to; I've never seen him behave as a troll or "taking the piss".

I also don't think any of this is an attack on icm mods (or icm users in general). And your call to "prove his point" is misguided: he's referring to films ranked by most official lists, not films ranked by number of checks.

The two of you may have differing opinions on how DTC should be constructed, or how people should participate, but I believe you're both being sincere in your participation and your individual desires to see this list be as good as it could be (under your own definitions).
sorry, but some of this discussion - between Onderhond and me - has spilled over from an earlier discussion elsewhere that you might have missed. I'm not going to summarize his statements as that wouldn't be fair and I agree he's entitled to his opinions and for the most part I respect them even if we don't agree.

I feel it best to leave it there unless Onderhond has issues with what I've replied to him. I don't believe I've ever accused him of being insincere or trolling, but what I did read earlier, about DtC being "a game" did feel to me like "taking the piss" on those who view the exercise as serious. Thus why I said I was glad to know that he votes for films he likes and not some other fashion (as suggested by his earlier post).

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: 7822
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#76

Post by xianjiro » May 15th, 2020, 3:49 pm

mjf314 wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:22 pm
xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:09 pm
I'm not voting for films that I think others would want in an extension of the canon - I'm using that information as part of my consideration when I think my opinion either not quite firm or when I realize that my viewpoint is vastly different.
So if I'm understanding correctly, when you rate a film, it's basically the average of your own opinion and other people's opinions?
I've never said that - I've said when in doubt, I consider things like the IMDb rating and what I remember of "critical acclaim". I will add this factors in on only a relative handful of films I rated.
mjf314 wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:22 pm
Why are they not canon worthy? Just because you think other people won't like them? That's why we vote. If you like a film, but other people don't, then it won't make the list.

What if you guess wrong, and you think people won't like it, but they do like it?
Sorry, I'm really at a loss where you're getting all this. Have you seen Lust in the Dust? If not, there is probably a reason why and it will be clear if you watch it. Then we can discuss how canon worthy it is. I will also provide a list of my top 12 non-canonical films and we can continue this part of the discussion. However, that would only likely be meaningful if I chose to nominate films for DtC, but since I don't view my consideration of favorite-ness as being equal to canon worthy it won't change my clear decision NOT to nominate films.
xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:09 pm
Everyone's opinion should absolutely count. However, the fact that I've always loved something like Lust in the Dust doesn't mean it deserves to be canonical - even if I could get two others (or five others) to rate it a 6 no matter what means I had to employ to make that happen (because I can't imagine many would support it willingly).
mjf314 wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:22 pm
I don't think we should be voting based on the assumption that people will cheat. If you love it but others don't, then it won't make the list. If you give a higher rating than other people, it doesn't mean that your rating is wrong.
But again, why does my love of any given film make it canon-worthy? I also don't think we should vote based on assumptions of other's cheating but this has been raised in discussions related to our projects in the past (gaming the system).

I do think the beauty of our projects is that they are compilations of users' votes. I will also reiterate something I've said in relation to 500<400: I don't find much if any value in curating a personal list towards that end. I don't feel I have much in common with other users so it's a waste of my time and energy, but I do find value in watching films that have made the 1000<400 and providing a vote on them. I did keep about 200 titles culled from the one time I ranked my favorites (with minor tweaks since), but in general, I don't 'enjoy' making lists: I enjoy working them. I find making lists really hard, taxing work.

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

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11374
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#77

Post by mjf314 » May 15th, 2020, 4:13 pm

xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:49 pm
I've never said that - I've said when in doubt, I consider things like the IMDb rating and what I remember of "critical acclaim". I will add this factors in on only a relative handful of films I rated.
How do you decide when to factor it in, and when not to factor it in?
xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:49 pm
But again, why does my love of any given film make it canon-worthy? I also don't think we should vote based on assumptions of other's cheating but this has been raised in discussions related to our projects in the past (gaming the system).
What's your definition of "canon-worthy"? Isn't a canon just a list of films that a lot of people consider good?

If you ask a lot of people to vote for which films they personally consider good, and you combine all of those votes together, then you get a list of films that a lot of people consider good.

If people vote based on what they think is already canon, then you end up with a stagnant canon.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4744
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#78

Post by OldAle1 » May 15th, 2020, 4:28 pm

mjf314 wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 4:13 pm
xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:49 pm
But again, why does my love of any given film make it canon-worthy? I also don't think we should vote based on assumptions of other's cheating but this has been raised in discussions related to our projects in the past (gaming the system).
What's your definition of "canon-worthy"? Isn't a canon just a list of films that a lot of people consider good?

If you ask a lot of people to vote for which films they personally consider good, and you combine all of those votes together, then you get a list of films that a lot of people consider good.

If people vote based on what they think is already canon, then you end up with a stagnant canon.
I think most of us who have seen a lot of films, and followed various canonical sites, lists, books, etc, have a pretty good idea of what definitely fits, might fit, or probably doesn't fit and never will. I appreciate that we all should still promote our favorites, but even so there is a difference between promoting something that you believe might have at least *some* canonical appeal and something that you really do know is only beloved by a tiny niche audience - especially if that film is decades old and has never developed any really strong critical reputation. I do depart from xianjiro in that I will definitely give my favorites high ratings, even if I know they have no chance - Black Dynamite was an example this year - but it's foolish to pretend that the canon is going to change so remarkably in any short span of years so as to include many of my favorites. There is a point I think where you should just accept that your own tastes in a certain area are idiosyncratic and won't be shared by many others, no matter how hard you try to convince them. And most of us have plenty of films that we love that are not currently on TSP that we do think might have some chance, so why not focus on those? I got one choice in this year; if instead of Mosaferan I had picked Remo Williams I would surely have had none; the fact that I love both films about equally really isn't the issue here - one film could be canonical, the other never can be. Unless, like I said, there's a RADICAL change in what the canon is, and that just is not going to happen - hasn't happened in the musical canon, the literature canon, the architecture canon, except over decades or centuries.

Baby steps.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 11374
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#79

Post by mjf314 » May 15th, 2020, 4:52 pm

OldAle1 wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 4:28 pm
There is a point I think where you should just accept that your own tastes in a certain area are idiosyncratic and won't be shared by many others, no matter how hard you try to convince them. And most of us have plenty of films that we love that are not currently on TSP that we do think might have some chance, so why not focus on those? I got one choice in this year; if instead of Mosaferan I had picked Remo Williams I would surely have had none; the fact that I love both films about equally really isn't the issue here - one film could be canonical, the other never can be. Unless, like I said, there's a RADICAL change in what the canon is, and that just is not going to happen - hasn't happened in the musical canon, the literature canon, the architecture canon, except over decades or centuries.

Baby steps.
I can understand only nominating films that you think have a chance, but if a film that you love has already been nominated by someone else, then you should give it a good rating.

If everyone was afraid to challenge the canon, then we'd never be able to make those baby steps.

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4383
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#80

Post by Dolwphin » May 15th, 2020, 4:59 pm

10s/9s/8s or stricter = what you think *should' be the canon. Also don't understand the amazement about why It would be difficult to remove 50/100 titles from TSPDT. My taste Is canon-adjacent and even I find much of the list to be meh: Box Office, Auteurs 17th greatest film: e.g. They Were Expendable ;) , Animation, and some auteurs I don't fancy.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

Post Reply