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

Re: Doubling the Canon 2021 - Improvement suggestions

#81

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » May 15th, 2020, 5:37 pm

xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 2:37 pm
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.
He meant this list: https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/?so ... altoplists
He's saying if you (people interested in expanding the canon) want another, but still canonical, perspective on what's missing from TSPDT then look at films on most official lists not on the the list and that's a fair perspective on what's missing. I don't think there's any accusation implied in there.

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

#82

Post by xianjiro » May 15th, 2020, 7:05 pm

mjf314 wrote:
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.
I'm going to reply here so as not to mess up the quoting. When to decide? When I don't feel sure. Let's say I remember feeling something was a weak 8 (on my IMDb rating system). I might not feel it's really canon-worthy per "All time top 1,801-2,400" nor the "I wouldn't mind if this was on DTC, it's really good, but you know there are a lot of great films out there, hmmm." and therefore I'm not excited about voting it a 3 but I'm not convinced in my gut that it really deserves a 2. That's when I'm going to look at information beyond myself. (IMDb rating and any memory of critical consensus). I also mentioned Being John Malkovich which I absolutely detested on more than one viewing but I know my reaction skewed more negatively than "popular opinion" and "critical commentary" so giving it a 0 just doesn't feel right to me, so in the last two votes I've given it a 3. I'm not trying to guess what others are rating it, but I'm trying to admit that my viewpoint is different from consensus and allow for that when rating. But there aren't many films that click for me this way on the ballot - I can't think of any others off hand but I'm guessing there were a handful.

Canon-worthy to me, in this case, is a group of films that in the totality of filmdom are the best, most important, most admired, most beloved, most influential works of all time. I can't begin to describe how much I detest The Birth of a Nation: it's a vile, disgusting piece of trash BUT did it influence narrative and character development in the American cinema (and beyond)? If the answer is yes and many have made and continue to make that argument, then it's canon-worthy no matter how much I detest the film's message. While I might take strong exception to it being called the 289th greatest film of all time, I don't think I know more (or better) than the likes of Ebert, Cousins, the NFPB, S&S editors, etc. I will make a point made elsewhere by Onderhond: it sure seems though like such logic might be reflective. What if S&S's editors decided it was canon-worthy because of what Ebert wrote and Cousins followed the leaders... I don't believe this, but it is an example of how canons can be self-reinforcing. Thus why I stated earlier that my approach is that DtC is our considered viewpoint as to what has been missed by what I'll call TSPDT's uber-canon - a canon of canons if you will.

Canon-worthy is a tall order. If I was asked to make a ranked list of of 2000 films I believed to be canon-worthy, I would decline the offer. No question. If for no other reason than in my mind I'm thinking: what about that film I will watch tomorrow, the day after, three months from now, whenever, and I think "How is this not on TSPDT?!!" But I am much more comfortable looking a list and saying "yeah, this really could be considered along with the ...est films of all time."

Last, since the project excludes films in TSPDT's uber-canon, I can't vote on films that are already canonical. I'm voting on films I think should be considered along side the canon or as an extension of the canon.

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:

#83

Post by Melvelet » May 15th, 2020, 9:17 pm

Maybe this should be the first improvement that should be done: define at least roughly what Doubling the Canon is supposed to be (nowadays) and find a name and description that fit this definition. I find it a bit problematic that it's explicitly described as something that the majority of voters feels it's not (at least it sounds as if "objective" canonical-ness is not a criterion for most). As a result we seem to be voting on different polls :shrug:

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

#84

Post by Onderhond » May 15th, 2020, 9:22 pm

xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:30 pm
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 sorry, but even I seem to have forgotten we quarreled before? :lol:
xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:30 pm
I feel it best to leave it there unless Onderhond has issues with what I've replied to him.
Nah, you can't be like me and not develop a thick skin. There seem to have been some misunderstandings about what I meant and we clearly have different takes on the projects, but no harm done.
xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:30 pm
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.
I think it's obvious you're way more serious about this than I am. You also seem to put a lot more thought and effort into your scoring than I do, for me it's just a recalculation of my personal ratings for films, so I get how it can be a little irritating when others don't put in that same effort.

That said, I never participate in polls when I feel I can't contribute anything meaningful. I won't submit a 50s list if I don't have favorites from the 50s myself, I think my standard for joining in on the polls and games are quite respectable in that regard. So when I enter the DtC challenge, I'll make sure that the voting is simply a reflection of my taste, not some trolls or weighed up/down voting to get one of my personal favorites in.

Where out opinions seem to differ is the nature of the DtC exercise. For you it's a second canon of films that missed the boat for whatever reason, for me it's fixing the idea of what a canon represents. It's no secret that I'm quite anti-canon and think it generally does more harm than it does good, so it's obvious I'm not going to pick films that fit the common definition and vibe of the standing canon. I'd rather pick films I like and consider worthy entries in what a canon-like list might offer.

I could be misunderstanding the idea behind the DtC of course and if it's really the point that we should look for the next 1000 films in the current canon I'll probably be entering very different films, but from the reactions of other people here it seems not everyone seems to be agreeing with your definition either, so let's see what the future will bring :)

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

#85

Post by mjf314 » May 15th, 2020, 10:38 pm

xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 7:05 pm
I also mentioned Being John Malkovich which I absolutely detested on more than one viewing but I know my reaction skewed more negatively than "popular opinion" and "critical commentary" so giving it a 0 just doesn't feel right to me, so in the last two votes I've given it a 3.
You said "when in doubt, I consider things like the IMDb rating". Now you say you detested Being John Malkovich even after watching it multiple times. How can you be in doubt? You know very well that you don't like it. Or did you give it a higher rating because you consider it influential?
xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 7:05 pm
Canon-worthy to me, in this case, is a group of films that in the totality of filmdom are the best, most important, most admired, most beloved, most influential works of all time.
That explains why you might give a high rating to a film that you don't like, but it doesn't explain why you don't give 6s.

For example, what about a film like Il sorpasso (it was on the 2018 ballot)? It's one of 364 films that you favorited, so it's in your top 600. Almost everyone else likes it (4.7 DtC rating with 63 votes). And it's the 3rd best Italian film according to Italian critics. Did you give it a 6? Or did you lower it to 5?

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

#86

Post by mightysparks » May 15th, 2020, 11:48 pm

I probably vote more like Onderhond, as I see the list kind of like ‘fixing’ the canon, but I do take other things into account too. But if I really hate a film, then to me it’s probably worn out its welcome and doesn’t belong in the canon or at least how I’d like to see it. Especially since the major influencers of the canon are usually ‘snotty and crusty old white men’ so there are plenty of perspectives not being considered anyway. My taste might not align with critics and the so/called ‘elite’ much but it doesn’t mean my taste and thoughts on film are worthless so I’m not going to discount them entirely. But you know, there are plenty of films I like that I wouldn’t be voting for to be in the canon because I don’t think they belong there, and there are plenty of canonized films that I hate and think are worthless and I wouldn’t hesitate to give a 0. There are others I hate and recognize my biases and their worth or influence within cinema and begrudgingly give them higher points.
"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:

#87

Post by xianjiro » May 16th, 2020, 3:17 am

Onderhond wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 9:22 pm
Nah, you can't be like me and not develop a thick skin. There seem to have been some misunderstandings about what I meant and we clearly have different takes on the projects, but no harm done.
Thought as much thus why I've stood my ground as I have, and why I respect you and your opinion enough to enter the debate. While I don't expect to win you over, I'd say our debate (as well as mjf314's) have lain bare a important problem summed up much more succinctly by Melvelet.

For me the project is clearly defined and I have limited difficulty understanding the rules and abiding by them. I can also accept that for some defining "canon-worthy" is problematic and they offer their best approximation - their top movies (favorites for some). I don't believe this 'destroys' the project: I just see it is as not being quite true to the project's spirit and definition. I've also stated that I believe the beauty is in the amalgamation - the numbers - and what is created.
xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 3:30 pm
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.
Onderhond wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 9:22 pm
Where out opinions seem to differ is the nature of the DtC exercise. For you it's a second canon of films that missed the boat for whatever reason, for me it's fixing the idea of what a canon represents. It's no secret that I'm quite anti-canon and think it generally does more harm than it does good, so it's obvious I'm not going to pick films that fit the common definition and vibe of the standing canon. I'd rather pick films I like and consider worthy entries in what a canon-like list might offer.

I could be misunderstanding the idea behind the DtC of course and if it's really the point that we should look for the next 1000 films in the current canon I'll probably be entering very different films, but from the reactions of other people here it seems not everyone seems to be agreeing with your definition either, so let's see what the future will bring :)
See and here's why I respect your arguments. I get the desire to want to "fix the idea of what a canon represents." I just don't believe it's fair to put that on an already established project.

So, for example, what if I were to say "I want to DESTROY the idea of a film canon." Should I then use this project to nominate the 12 worst films I've seen and then rate them all 6?

And forgive the sports metaphor, but I think what we have here are people showing up to play a rugby match wearing American football pads or carrying a football (soccer ball). :lol:

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:

#88

Post by xianjiro » May 16th, 2020, 4:37 am

mjf314 wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 10:38 pm
xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 7:05 pm
I also mentioned Being John Malkovich which I absolutely detested on more than one viewing but I know my reaction skewed more negatively than "popular opinion" and "critical commentary" so giving it a 0 just doesn't feel right to me, so in the last two votes I've given it a 3.
You said "when in doubt, I consider things like the IMDb rating". Now you say you detested Being John Malkovich even after watching it multiple times. How can you be in doubt? You know very well that you don't like it. Or did you give it a higher rating because you consider it influential?
You've consistently misrepresented what I've said. I'm growing frustrated with this fact. I will state one last time there are two situations where I look outside myself when rating for DtC:

1) When I feel I don't have a strong feeling if a given film is an X or an X-1, especially in terms of it being canon-worthy and canon-worthy is what matters. Not how much a film is favorited (loved) by me and me alone.

2) When I feel that I have a strong feeling that doesn't really jibe with other film lovers, cinephiles, or critics.

I provided two examples and you continuously misrepresent them. However, I grant that since we seem to have different definitions of key concepts in this discussion it's because we are writing at crossed purposes, BUT it's starting to feel like you're attacking me and I'm beginning to wonder why.
xianjiro wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 7:05 pm
Canon-worthy to me, in this case, is a group of films that in the totality of filmdom are the best, most important, most admired, most beloved, most influential works of all time.
mjf314 wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 10:38 pm
That explains why you might give a high rating to a film that you don't like, but it doesn't explain why you don't give 6s.

For example, what about a film like Il sorpasso (it was on the 2018 ballot)? It's one of 364 films that you favorited, so it's in your top 600. Almost everyone else likes it (4.7 DtC rating with 63 votes). And it's the 3rd best Italian film according to Italian critics. Did you give it a 6? Or did you lower it to 5?
Yes, I've double checked and I've never given a 6 in the three years I've participated. I have explained it in this post:
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.
Again, this is why I'm growing frustrated ...

Yes, Il sorpasso is a good example and I did vote 5 for it in 2018. I stand by that but since it's ranked #218 on TSPDT's 1,000 Greatest Films: 1001-2000 and as I understand things, it will likely not be a valid nomination in the future because of this fact, it is now a moot point. But for sake of discussion I will say I believe it to be in the all-time top 1,200, just not quite sure I'm willing to go on the record that its in the top 600 (even if it's in my personal top 20). Additionally, I would now say "This should be on TSPDT." and guess what, as we have now extended the definition to include the TSPDT Top 2000, it is.

So, as promised, I've culled my favorites for 12 titles that aren't on any of the three TSPDT canonical lists. I will provide 13 titles because I have a strong preference for a different edit of a film which is very clearly canonical. My first non-canonical favorite is my #7 and my thirteenth is my #32 favorite.

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994) (7)
Pao Da Shuang Deng (1994)
Carne trémula (1997)
Angels in America (2003)
Tôkyô goddofâzâzu (2003)
American History X (1998)
From Russia with Love (1963)
Leaving Las Vegas (1995)
Longtime Companion (1989)
The Hanging Garden (1997)
Das Boot (1985 miniseries)
My Dog Tulip (2009)
Voor een verloren soldaat (1992) (32)

Of this listing, probably the only film I would defend as "canon-worthy" would be From Russia with Love. I consider it to be a better film than Goldfinger even though I clearly get that most people love Goldfinger more. I ranked them 1 and 2 when I ranked all Bond films for a blog post some years back. Besides developing my list of ranked favorites, this is the only time I have done such an exercise and I haven't tried to work Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, or Spectre into my previous ranking. I did however add Casino Royale (2006) so that tells me I did my prior ranking in 2004 or 2005. Gives you a sense how often I try to develop a personal ranked list. I also reworked my favorites once for 500<400 (my explicitly ranked films) with only minor tweaks since.

Why isn't Priscilla canonical? Please, I'd love for those who were involved in the developing and voting for the TSPDT extended canon to explain why it isn't in the top 2000. If someone else were to nominate it, I'd be very, very tempted to give it a 6 on my DtC ballot, but since it hasn't even been nominated in the three years I've participated, that tells me I'm alone in this feeling: it's too personal and my beloved doesn't canonical make. However, I obviously voted for it when I participated in our favorite films exercise but not in 500<400 since its well over the limit.

Probably the only other two films from that list I deem worthy considerations for an extension of the canon would be American History X and Leaving Las Vegas. Again, if someone else were to nominate ... (see previous paragraph because my logic is pretty much exactly the same). However, I will add that I get that a lot of people consider these films way too depressing or troubling and thus aren't favorited or are actively disliked. Hated even. This is exactly why I think they are both so great: the lay bare their subjects in an honest, raw, unflinching manner and for that I consider them greatest of the great, but should they replace another of the top 600? Which two films? Nah, I don't have an answer for that, but I do feel they are worthy members of the Top 2000 community.

So, why aren't these 13 films in "the uber-canon"? Let's see, six of them are decidedly queer if not outright gay, something people argued against even adopting an official list to cover just a few years back. Hmmm, wonder why I might deem them to NOT be canonical and remember canonical is different in my definition than personal favorite or even personal canon.

Almost all are very much outsider films and while other outsider films are canonical, these obviously haven't registered with a wider audience. Five of the films are on no official list and only three even fall below the 400 checks. Interestingly, the final film on the list is the only one to have made the 1000<400 but it's also "explores the complex and romantic relationship between an adult soldier and a displaced, lonely adolescent boy." Gee, wonder why a movie about child sexual abuse isn't canonical. Go fucking figure! I only have the results of 2019's 500<400 vote. If I understand correctly it made the 1000<400 with only four votes, only one of which was top 10. Two were top 100, but that doesn't count - only the Top 50 seems to though I don't know how that affects the final ranking. Still want to argue that it is canon-worthy because it's my 32nd most favorite film but not in my top 50 for 500<400? Go for it. I'd love to read that defense.

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

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

#89

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » May 16th, 2020, 6:06 am

By your definition of canonical American History X and Leaving Las Vegas are both definitely canonical. I think Priscilla, Angels in America and Carne trémula probably too but maybe I'm not fully grasping the nuances of your definition. Tokyo and From Russia (saying it's better than Goldfinger may or may not be the majority opinion, but it's definitely not an uncommon or unpopular one) might be but probably not by your strict definition. Das Boot is obviously canonical but the whole mini-series vs movie thing raises other issues.

I don't agree with the way you view the project, I think some kind of objectivity is good but you're getting to a point where the argument becomes circular. This is in the canon so obviously canonical, this isn't so it must not be so I can't vote it a 6 and probably not a 5 either. Maybe you really are that tied to the canon, but your discussion of your frustrations with the canon suggests that's not the case. The goal of the project is precisely to fix the perspective gaps of the canon. The films that should (in our opinion) be canonical, except for the fact that (X type of people don't get to vote, or X types of films get dismissed, or a film is widely highly regarded but not quite adored by anyone, or it fell through the cracks, or etc.) Your arguments are precisely why those are films you should nominate for DtC and why they should be part of the canon.

I do understand your distinction between favourite and canonical, and while I don't meaningfully vote like that (to some extent I think I rate(d) like that so in that sense it's built into my ratings) I don't think it's an incorrect way to vote. I do, however, think that if you're going to make that distinction it should be on the basis of the film itself, not its critical status. If you enjoy a film because it's a guilty pleasure you think is kind of silly but hits the right buttons for you then yeah maybe it's not canonical and while some people would still rate it highly I can understand deciding not to. But if you think a film is well made and effective and deals with whatever it tries to do well but is discriminated against or ignored for reasons that aren't due to its quality then you should still be voting that film highly. Especially in cases like the films above where you're most certainly not alone.

AHX got great critical response, won awards and is fucking #35 on imdb. Same is true of LLV except it's popular reception is not as strong. Priscilla was a popular and critical hit and its lack of canonical status is probably due to a compounding of factors working against it (its comedic tone makes it less critically attractive, it came at a time where it was too taboo to truly break into mainstream critical consciousness but not taboo enough to garner the underground mystique, it didn't pick up the right fans in the right places to have a rediscovery, though I wouldn't be surprised if that happened). Angels in America was big, but it's a mini-series and as such its bar is so much higher. Roots is canonical as fuck yet on 0 official lists for similar reasons. Carne trémula is Almodovar which to me automatically makes it canon eligible unless there's something notably off the mark about it which doesn't seem to be the case. For another example a Coen bros film would automatically be canon eligible except for Intolerable Cruelty whose reputation is precisely "the bad Coen bros film."

Whether any of those would make DtC, I don't know, but they would not be out of place or particularly personal choices and they're one sort of film that DtC was made for. Perhaps your other favourites there are the other sort (the underseen and missed hidden gems) but I don't know them so I can't speak to that.

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

#90

Post by Onderhond » May 16th, 2020, 7:47 am

xianjiro wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 3:17 am
So, for example, what if I were to say "I want to DESTROY the idea of a film canon." Should I then use this project to nominate the 12 worst films I've seen and then rate them all 6?
That depends on who you ask I guess. Some will answer with the rather destructive answer you gave, others will try to come up with more constructive ways. I've spent the last 12 years working on a blog which I use to promote my personal favorites (818 reviews and counting), I'll just leave the conclusion to you :)
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 6:06 am
Priscilla was a popular and critical hit and its lack of canonical status is probably due to a compounding of factors working against it (its comedic tone makes it less critically attractive, it came at a time where it was too taboo to truly break into mainstream critical consciousness but not taboo enough to garner the underground mystique, it didn't pick up the right fans in the right places to have a rediscovery, though I wouldn't be surprised if that happened).
Lovely written, it also perfectly explains one of my main beefs with canon.

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

#91

Post by Angel Glez » May 16th, 2020, 10:12 am

Melvelet wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 9:17 pm
Maybe this should be the first improvement that should be done: define at least roughly what Doubling the Canon is supposed to be (nowadays) and find a name and description that fit this definition. I find it a bit problematic that it's explicitly described as something that the majority of voters feels it's not (at least it sounds as if "objective" canonical-ness is not a criterion for most). As a result we seem to be voting on different polls :shrug:
I understand what you mean but, personally speaking, I love diversity. For example, if everyone nominated films <400 checks, then this would not be doubling the canon, it would be a variant of 500<400, and if no one nominated films <400 checks, then the exercise would lose interest for many of the doublers.
Regarding the name, I think that after 14 years DtC is already a recognizable trademark. I'm used to it. I feel comfortable wearing that jacket. But of course it is not written in stone.

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

#92

Post by Fergenaprido » May 16th, 2020, 10:49 am

Someone posted the 1990s poll results from world of reel in the other thread. I went looking at the other lists on that site and found this one: https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/movies ... p-classics

I think it's pertinent to our discussion here, and offers some fine examples of how the definition of a "canon-worthy" film is constantly changing over time.

Films discussed in the article:
Vertigo
Psycho
2001: A Space Odyssey
Barry Lyndon
The Shining
The Night of the Hunter
The Rules of the Game
The General
Blade Runner

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

#93

Post by mjf314 » May 16th, 2020, 2:17 pm

@xianjiro: I'm sorry for misrepresenting you, but I'm still confused by your rating system.

I said you were averaging your opinion with others' opinions, but you said I misundestood. But it sounds to me like that's what you're doing, at least for some films. Maybe not an arithmetic mean, but a weighted average. You dislike Being John Malkovich, which is a 0 according to the rules, but you gave it a higher rating because others like it.
xianjiro wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 4:37 am
Yes, I've double checked and I've never given a 6 in the three years I've participated. I have explained it in this post:
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 still don't understand why you don't give 6s. What does it mean for TSPDT to "miss" a film?
xianjiro wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 4:37 am
But for sake of discussion I will say I believe it to be in the all-time top 1,200, just not quite sure I'm willing to go on the record that its in the top 600 (even if it's in my personal top 20). Additionally, I would now say "This should be on TSPDT." and guess what, as we have now extended the definition to include the TSPDT Top 2000, it is.
Why are you not willing to go on the record that it's in the top 600? And what does "in the top 600" mean? You said the canon is "a group of films that in the totality of filmdom are the best, most important, most admired, most beloved, most influential works of all time". But how do you know what films they are? Are you saying it's not in the top 600 just because it's not in the TSPDT top 600?

Or is it because you feel bad saying that a film in TSPDT's top 600 doesn't deserve its spot? But then why is that film more deserving than Il sorpasso?
xianjiro wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 4:37 am
So, why aren't these 13 films in "the uber-canon"? Let's see, six of them are decidedly queer if not outright gay, something people argued against even adopting an official list to cover just a few years back. Hmmm, wonder why I might deem them to NOT be canonical and remember canonical is different in my definition than personal favorite or even personal canon.
When you say these films aren't canonical, do you mean you wouldn't nominate them? Or do mean, even if someone else nominates them, you wouldn't give them a 6 because you think other people don't like gay films? There are already a lot of critically acclaimed gay films.

Canons change over time. If a gay film needs X amount of support in order to become "canon", you can be part of the support. You don't need to wait for other people to do it.

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

#94

Post by xianjiro » May 16th, 2020, 6:51 pm

I have said all I wish to say about DtC and my ratings. I'm sorry my logic doesn't work for you. I would prefer not to be singled out like I was in this post nor do I consent to my ratings or composites being used for any other purpose than they were submitted.

Angel, I have no suggestions for the future direction of the project but appreciate the work you have done on it to date. Thank you.

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

User avatar
AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12468
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#95

Post by AdamH » May 16th, 2020, 7:16 pm

This thread :blink:

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

#96

Post by Melvelet » May 17th, 2020, 10:29 am

Angel Glez wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 10:12 am
Melvelet wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 9:17 pm
Maybe this should be the first improvement that should be done: define at least roughly what Doubling the Canon is supposed to be (nowadays) and find a name and description that fit this definition. I find it a bit problematic that it's explicitly described as something that the majority of voters feels it's not (at least it sounds as if "objective" canonical-ness is not a criterion for most). As a result we seem to be voting on different polls :shrug:
I understand what you mean but, personally speaking, I love diversity. For example, if everyone nominated films <400 checks, then this would not be doubling the canon, it would be a variant of 500<400, and if no one nominated films <400 checks, then the exercise would lose interest for many of the doublers.
Regarding the name, I think that after 14 years DtC is already a recognizable trademark. I'm used to it. I feel comfortable wearing that jacket. But of course it is not written in stone.
I also like the diversity the list and I guess I should clarify my point a bit. By "voting on different polls" I meant the question whether canonical-ness is de facto a voting criterion for Doubling the Canon. Most of us decided only to vote based on personal enjoyment but for some the canonical-ness plays at least a part in the rating - and I feel that the name and description do in fact imply that canonical-ness is supposed to be a (if not the most defining) criterion. The results are skewed by the missing unanimity of what we're actually voting for. I also belong to the "personal enjoyment" crowd but if I'm trying to see it neutrally, then interpreting "canon" as "what would the canon look like if obscure movies were more widely seen and everyone's taste was closer to mine" is quite a bit of twisted logic - especially when we don't tell the people stumbling upon the list. We could just call it personal enjoyment instead of associating our own opinion with "canon" and I don't see any other instance where we do this. Currently what most voters do is actually a transgression of subject*. I suggest to change the subject instead of changing the vote.

I get the problem with changing a brand name. But if we want to achieve "a friendlier game [and] higher participation" we could also re-think on how we represent the list. The second part of "Doubling the Canon" is interpreted way more squishy than it might have been when the name was chosen and now the Doubling part will be even more factually wrong than when TSPDT 21st Century was defined as canon. Imagine finding a list called "50 Underseen gems of World Cinema" and then the list would have 200 movies with 2/3 being classical Hollywood movies that are on TSP because the voters said that 50 films is simply not enough, that all old movies are underseen nowadays and that the USA is part of the world. It might annoy me enough to get an urge to fix the error or, more likely, I simply say WTF and move on in confusion. DtC's drift might not be that extreme (or maybe just not that obvious) but it's certainly not very transparent, not even to the people voting on it. A re-branding and more accurate description could actually get some of the people who chose to ignore DtC to have a second look.

* = sorry, couldn't find a better translation to what I would say in German. I mean the thing that will lead to getting the worst grade for one's essay and thus failing it.

EDIT: And to clarify: My posts in this thread don't fully follow my initial suggestions in the results thread (splitting the list up into a hidden gems and an extending canon list, although I still find the idea appealing). I support the Bayesian method that mjf suggested.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1982
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#97

Post by matthewscott8 » May 17th, 2020, 1:45 pm

Name: Doubling the Canon
Host: Angel Glez :innocent:
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 dropoffs from TSPDT 21st century are too poor so do not autonominate these
Rating system: 0-6
Adjustment for popularity: For every 10 votes the lowest vote gets dropped (???)
Threshold: 8 votes
Re-voting: After 5 years

some sort of vote normaliszation scheme. some people give out hardly any good ratings, I am actually worried that they will have seen a film I nominate. Others give out 6 too easily.

User avatar
hurluberlu
Donator
Posts: 1842
Joined: Jan 04, 2017
Contact:

#98

Post by hurluberlu » May 22nd, 2020, 10:32 am

I am willing to consider more drastic changes. I dont really see the link with TSDPT relevant any more.

Name: Doubling the Canon The Other Canon
Host: Angel Glez
Canon: TSPDT GF top 1000 + TSPDT 21st Century top 1000 + TSPDT GF top 1001-2000 anything official except 500<400 on no other official list
Doubling list: 1100 1000 titles
Nominations: 12 films per doubler + TSPDT drop-offs + DtC holdovers + revotes
Rating system: 0-6 1-10 with normalization suggested by edward5
Adjustment for popularity: For every 10 votes the lowest vote gets dropped none
Threshold: 8 votes for this one would be great to see the stats of current list: if we raise/drop it, how many films would we lose/gain ? I am otherwise for a moving threshold based on participation
Re-voting: After 5 years 2years if voted <20%voters, 3y if<30%, 4y if<40%, 5y for the others
#JeSuisCharlie Liberté, Liberté chérie !

Image
ImageImageImageImage

Nathan Treadway
Donator
Posts: 4249
Joined: Jun 26, 2015
Location: Springfield, MO, USA
Contact:

#99

Post by Nathan Treadway » July 27th, 2020, 6:30 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
May 15th, 2020, 6:20 am
Name: Doubling Expanding the Canon

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.
Sorry for responding to an old post, but, I haven't read this thread in a while (ever?) But, I really like the idea of renaming it to this.. In no small part because it can be shortened to ETC (etcetera), and, I really love the word play there. :lol:

Post Reply