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 16 released September 13th)
Polls: Romance (Results), 1951 (Results), 500<400 (Sep 23rd), 2008 (Oct 4th)
Challenges: Animation, Silent Era, Russia/USSR
Film of the Week: Durak, October nominations (Sep 25th)
World Cup S4: QF Schedule, Match QFB: India vs Greece (Sep 20th), Match QFC: Germany vs Italy (Oct 1st)

ICM Forum's 500<400 2020 Nominations Due 11:59PM GMT Sat Sep 26

500<400, Favourite 1001 movies, Doubling the Canon, Film World Cup and many other votes

User avatar
AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12572
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#162

Post by AdamH » September 16th, 2020, 9:11 pm

What's the best way to make a list for this? My one is very out-of-date so I am thinking I will start from scratch but the difficult in re-ordering on IMDb makes it harder. I was thinking of using the link in the OP which shows titles you've rated with <400 checks, using linkclump to move the titles to Excel (the ones I've rated highly enough) and then re-ordering on Excel and adding the list to IMDb with List helper. Good idea? Any other suggestions?

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#163

Post by Ebbywebby » September 16th, 2020, 10:25 pm

Note to others: the Russian silent "Bed and Sofa" (#72 in last year's <400 poll) passed 400 checks a day or so ago.

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9508
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#164

Post by sol » September 16th, 2020, 11:02 pm

AdamH wrote:
September 16th, 2020, 9:11 pm
What's the best way to make a list for this? My one is very out-of-date so I am thinking I will start from scratch but the difficult in re-ordering on IMDb makes it harder. I was thinking of using the link in the OP which shows titles you've rated with <400 checks, using linkclump to move the titles to Excel (the ones I've rated highly enough) and then re-ordering on Excel and adding the list to IMDb with List helper. Good idea? Any other suggestions?
Export your IMDb list, import it into iCM, save it, reorder sorted by # of checks and delete what you no longer need.

IMDb listmaking sucks due to the reordering issue. I would never voluntarily make an IMDb list if I had the option to create the same list on iCM. :shrug:
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24824
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#165

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » September 17th, 2020, 5:40 am

sol wrote:
September 16th, 2020, 11:02 pm
AdamH wrote:
September 16th, 2020, 9:11 pm
What's the best way to make a list for this? My one is very out-of-date so I am thinking I will start from scratch but the difficult in re-ordering on IMDb makes it harder. I was thinking of using the link in the OP which shows titles you've rated with <400 checks, using linkclump to move the titles to Excel (the ones I've rated highly enough) and then re-ordering on Excel and adding the list to IMDb with List helper. Good idea? Any other suggestions?
Export your IMDb list, import it into iCM, save it, reorder sorted by # of checks and delete what you no longer need.

IMDb listmaking sucks due to the reordering issue. I would never voluntarily make an IMDb list if I had the option to create the same list on iCM. :shrug:
This assumes that "your imdb list" is one you're otherwise happy with where the primary issue is it being too big because of ineligible films, not that it's missing everything you've watched in the last few years.

If you need to remake a list from scratch, then yeah what Adam posted is best. Although, I think mjf made a script recently that pulls out imdb results, and I think that's probably better than linkclump since imdb search results have a bunch of extraneous links.

Edit: I think this is the script: viewtopic.php?p=635122#p635122


User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13644
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#167

Post by brokenface » September 17th, 2020, 11:53 am

to make sure I get a list in, this is previous version edited to remove >400 films only:

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/brok ... rokenface/

Plan to get back and do some adding/reordering before deadline.


User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11192
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#169

Post by St. Gloede » September 17th, 2020, 9:35 pm

Finally managed to add all the top films from the last year. I will likely make a few tweaks, but best to get it in now: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls055139558

User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 1336
Joined: Jun 30, 2011
Location: Germany
Contact:

#170

Post by Torgo » September 17th, 2020, 10:46 pm

Your Guy Maddin title recently crossed 400 checks :)
And the 2019-Lighthouse is of course not eligible by release year, guess you added it to save work for the next poll?

User avatar
GruesomeTwosome
Donator
Posts: 3101
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Industrial Wasteland, USA
Contact:

#171

Post by GruesomeTwosome » September 18th, 2020, 5:15 am

Torgo wrote:
September 17th, 2020, 10:46 pm
Your Guy Maddin title recently crossed 400 checks :)
And the 2019-Lighthouse is of course not eligible by release year, guess you added it to save work for the next poll?
Not to mention that The Lighthouse (2019) is also a tad over 400 checks, as it currently sits at...3,323 checks. :whistling:
I’m to remember every man I've seen fall into a plate of spaghetti???

My IMDB profile
ICM
Letterboxd

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11192
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#172

Post by St. Gloede » September 18th, 2020, 6:12 am

Torgo wrote:
September 17th, 2020, 10:46 pm
Your Guy Maddin title recently crossed 400 checks :)
And the 2019-Lighthouse is of course not eligible by release year, guess you added it to save work for the next poll?
No, it was added by mistake and I was sure I had deleted it...

Thanks!

User avatar
rnilsson19
Posts: 666
Joined: Dec 01, 2016
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#173

Post by rnilsson19 » September 18th, 2020, 10:09 am

Films on the list that might hit 400 checks before the deadline:

Out 1 (1971) - 399 checks
Subarnarekha (1965) - 399 checks
Happy End (1967) - 397 checks

User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 1336
Joined: Jun 30, 2011
Location: Germany
Contact:

#174

Post by Torgo » September 18th, 2020, 1:17 pm

Is it cheating when, say, 5 of us decide to uncheck the films just in time for the poll? tehe

GruesomeTwosome: Oops! Good call, haha.

User avatar
AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12572
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#175

Post by AdamH » September 18th, 2020, 4:12 pm

I'm the opposite. Would rather films reached 400 checks and were replaced by new ones. Seriously hope no-one would actually uncheck a film...

User avatar
hurluberlu
Donator
Posts: 1907
Joined: Jan 04, 2017
Contact:

#176

Post by hurluberlu » September 18th, 2020, 6:34 pm

#JeSuisCharlie Liberté, Liberté chérie !

Image
ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
rnilsson19
Posts: 666
Joined: Dec 01, 2016
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#177

Post by rnilsson19 » September 18th, 2020, 9:07 pm

This might have been discussed before but has there ever been talk of keeping the list regularly updated? Once a film reaches 400 checks it gets replaced by a film lower down on the list.

User avatar
AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12572
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#178

Post by AdamH » September 18th, 2020, 9:30 pm

rnilsson19 wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 9:07 pm
This might have been discussed before but has there ever been talk of keeping the list regularly updated? Once a film reaches 400 checks it gets replaced by a film lower down on the list.
I think that's a really cool idea and worthy of discussion. I'd say the drawbacks are:

1) It's hard enough to work through the list without films dropping off throughout the year
2) It would make it even more likely than now that people would avoid voting for films which have nearly 400 checks. I don't really like that people do that and I'm certain it would put people off voting for them if they could fall off the list after a couple of weeks.

I do think it's a really interesting idea and would be cool but, on balance, I think it might not work out. I'm not entirely decided on what I think though.

toromash
Posts: 139
Joined: Sep 09, 2015
Contact:

#179

Post by toromash » September 18th, 2020, 11:15 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 6:12 am
Torgo wrote:
September 17th, 2020, 10:46 pm
Your Guy Maddin title recently crossed 400 checks :)
And the 2019-Lighthouse is of course not eligible by release year, guess you added it to save work for the next poll?
No, it was added by mistake and I was sure I had deleted it...

Thanks!
Also films like buffet froid, the emperor's naked army marches on, symbol, By the law, Story of the fox, Medea and Lunacy is above 400

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30874
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#180

Post by mightysparks » September 19th, 2020, 1:07 am

An unofficial updating of the list might work. If someone is willing to pay attention, they can post here with like so and so reached 400 checks and is replaced by x.
"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
beavis
Posts: 2277
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#181

Post by beavis » September 19th, 2020, 6:15 am

I like to work with this list a lot, but the last two years i have spend little time actually doing that, so for me the fact that it updates once a year makes it easier to keep track and plan in movies that I hopefully will watch only months down the line... the obscurity factor combined with a bit of staticness helps is what i'm saying.


User avatar
Lammetje
Donator
Posts: 3852
Joined: Oct 04, 2013
Location: Poland
Contact:

#183

Post by Lammetje » September 19th, 2020, 1:55 pm

Torgo wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 1:17 pm
Is it cheating when, say, 5 of us decide to uncheck the films just in time for the poll? tehe
AdamH wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 4:12 pm
I'm the opposite. Would rather films reached 400 checks and were replaced by new ones. Seriously hope no-one would actually uncheck a film...
Sadly this happened before in the past (with The External World).
iCM | IMDb | Last.fm | Listal

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

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4830
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#184

Post by OldAle1 » September 19th, 2020, 2:33 pm

AdamH wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 4:12 pm
I'm the opposite. Would rather films reached 400 checks and were replaced by new ones. Seriously hope no-one would actually uncheck a film...
Same here. I'll be removing the few films on my current list that have gone over 400 of course (I last did a big update a few months ago so got rid of most then), but also most of the ones over 390. Out 1 has been #1 on the list since I first did this but it's at 399 now - it's tempting to leave it and see what happens, but why? In this case, we're talking about a film that's on 4 other official lists, including the main TSP and the Sight & Sound. It already has plenty of exposure and the only reason it took this long to hit 400 is because it's so long. Other films that are close to 400 and on lots of lists are also probably going to get chopped - to me the purpose of the list is, obviously, highlighting obscurities, and while any film with 200 or 300 or fewer checks is "obscure" by definition, there's obscure and there's obscure. The films that are on loads of lists that still don't have that many checks are probably either really long, or not available in quality editions (see Al mummia for an example of the latter). Not sure that promoting those is the most valuable way to use the list - not for me anyway. I tend to think of the list's purpose as being "what are the films that are relatively unseen that I think *could* become more popular/better-loved/better-known someday?" A film on TSP or S&S or a Cannes winner, something like that, is already on it's way and already has some help. Not that I'm going to remove everything that's on multiple lists from my own list, but it's worth thinking about.

User avatar
rnilsson19
Posts: 666
Joined: Dec 01, 2016
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#185

Post by rnilsson19 » September 19th, 2020, 4:23 pm

AdamH wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 9:30 pm
rnilsson19 wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 9:07 pm
This might have been discussed before but has there ever been talk of keeping the list regularly updated? Once a film reaches 400 checks it gets replaced by a film lower down on the list.
I think that's a really cool idea and worthy of discussion. I'd say the drawbacks are:

1) It's hard enough to work through the list without films dropping off throughout the year
2) It would make it even more likely than now that people would avoid voting for films which have nearly 400 checks. I don't really like that people do that and I'm certain it would put people off voting for them if they could fall off the list after a couple of weeks.

I do think it's a really interesting idea and would be cool but, on balance, I think it might not work out. I'm not entirely decided on what I think though.
Maybe the prospect of new, more obscure films appearing could make people more inclined to watch the ones with lots of checks and the new ones appearing, thus making the list more fun to work through thanks to how dynamic it is?

A film like Happy End is probably gonna survive the deadline but probably hit 400 within a week or so afterwards and it's already on two other official lists, does it really need another year of exposure ahead of another, probably more obscure film on the list?

Also, there's always a few films every year whose number of checks ends up soaring like One Cut from the Dead on the current list which has 800 checks now.

User avatar
AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12572
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#186

Post by AdamH » September 19th, 2020, 4:40 pm

rnilsson19 wrote:
September 19th, 2020, 4:23 pm
AdamH wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 9:30 pm
rnilsson19 wrote:
September 18th, 2020, 9:07 pm
This might have been discussed before but has there ever been talk of keeping the list regularly updated? Once a film reaches 400 checks it gets replaced by a film lower down on the list.
I think that's a really cool idea and worthy of discussion. I'd say the drawbacks are:

1) It's hard enough to work through the list without films dropping off throughout the year
2) It would make it even more likely than now that people would avoid voting for films which have nearly 400 checks. I don't really like that people do that and I'm certain it would put people off voting for them if they could fall off the list after a couple of weeks.

I do think it's a really interesting idea and would be cool but, on balance, I think it might not work out. I'm not entirely decided on what I think though.
Maybe the prospect of new, more obscure films appearing could make people more inclined to watch the ones with lots of checks and the new ones appearing, thus making the list more fun to work through thanks to how dynamic it is?

A film like Happy End is probably gonna survive the deadline but probably hit 400 within a week or so afterwards and it's already on two other official lists, does it really need another year of exposure ahead of another, probably more obscure film on the list?

Also, there's always a few films every year whose number of checks ends up soaring like One Cut from the Dead on the current list which has 800 checks now.
I do support your idea, in theory.

What I don't like is that people currently have strategies in their voting e.g. not voting for films in official lists (even if those films get absolutely no attention by being in the official lists they are in) or not voting for films with, say, 300+ votes. I personally just go for what the list was intended for i.e. voting for your favourite films with <400 lists. My worry would be that this idea you're proposing would make strategic voting even more common.

I do agree that it's a bit pointless having Happy End in the list for a whole extra year on 397 checks when another film might have reached 400 checks today and missed out.

I also think it's unfortunate when something like One Cut from the Dead ends up on 800 checks. I don't really know anything about the film. I'm guessing the 2017 release date has something to do with it? I suppose we could change the eligbility to exclude films from the previous two years (rather than just one) but perhaps this is an isolated case.

I'd also say that not that many films actually make it to 400 checks so your idea wouldn't actually be that disruptive to people working through the list. I think it's only 49 films that have reached 400 checks.

I guess I do support the idea to some extent but I have some concerns about it. Interested to hear what others think.


User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24824
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#188

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » September 19th, 2020, 8:05 pm

Updated the first post with all lists up to this point.
We're at 101

User avatar
burneyfan
Donator
Posts: 6005
Joined: Jun 23, 2011
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

#189

Post by burneyfan » September 19th, 2020, 8:10 pm

Ranked. I love seeing people's lists every year.

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/burn ... burneyfan/

User avatar
AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12572
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#190

Post by AdamH » September 19th, 2020, 8:19 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
September 19th, 2020, 8:05 pm
Updated the first post with all lists up to this point.
We're at 101
You've missed out max-scl.


User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4861
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#192

Post by Onderhond » September 19th, 2020, 8:58 pm

AdamH wrote:
September 19th, 2020, 4:40 pm
I guess I do support the idea to some extent but I have some concerns about it. Interested to hear what others think.
My short opinion is that people "working" on lists are way too pampered here. These lists are about film discovery, if you're disappointed to have seen a film that drops off a list later on, then you're not much of a film fan imo.

Box Office lists and IMDb lists are also regularly updated based on their criteria, I don't see why it shouldn't be done with this list.

User avatar
AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12572
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#193

Post by AdamH » September 19th, 2020, 9:16 pm

Onderhond wrote:
September 19th, 2020, 8:58 pm
AdamH wrote:
September 19th, 2020, 4:40 pm
I guess I do support the idea to some extent but I have some concerns about it. Interested to hear what others think.
My short opinion is that people "working" on lists are way too pampered here. These lists are about film discovery, if you're disappointed to have seen a film that drops off a list later on, then you're not much of a film fan imo.

Box Office lists and IMDb lists are also regularly updated based on their criteria, I don't see why it shouldn't be done with this list.
Not sure if you're aiming the first sentence at me or not but it has nothing to do with my opinion on this. I hope films reach 400 checks before the new poll so that new ones will replace them.

The comparison to the box office/IMDb lists doesn't really work. Neither of them are based on an annual poll.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4861
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#194

Post by Onderhond » September 19th, 2020, 10:05 pm

AdamH wrote:
September 19th, 2020, 9:16 pm
Not sure if you're aiming the first sentence at me or not but it has nothing to do with my opinion on this. I hope films reach 400 checks before the new poll so that new ones will replace them.
Nothing to do with you, just an argument I see popping up quite often that I think should have no weight at all.
AdamH wrote:
September 19th, 2020, 9:16 pm
The comparison to the box office/IMDb lists doesn't really work. Neither of them are based on an annual poll.
No, but they're lists that are based on criteria that shift over time (well, not the criteria itself, but whether a film conforms to those criteria). And once a film isn't eligible anymore, it drops off and is replaced by a film that is eligible.

Whether the source list is made up annually, weekly or daily doesn't change much imo.

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1712
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#195

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 19th, 2020, 11:49 pm

Hello there, PA! Hope you are keeping well.

I spent yesterday evening and most of today assembling my list and am pretty happy with it. I decided to omit quite a few shorts from Bute, Peleshian, Fischinger, and others; films many of which I loved and admired greatly but which are somewhat indistinct and hazy in my memory. Unless something really grabbed me and awoke a residual pang of admiration and adoration, I tended to err on the side of leaving things out. Plenty of time to rediscover and re-appraise those oftentimes cherished favourites from years past...

Even allowing for that overlooking of quite a number of 'favourites', I did rather lose the run of myself when it came to the length of my list!

My choices are arranged in three tiers:

Tier 1 (My 10/10 films): Entries 1-215
Tier 2 (My 9/10 films): Entries 216-815
Tier 3 (A selection of my fave 8/10 films, most of them additions in support of other voters): Entries 816-1,075


RogerTheMovieManiac88 https://www.imdb.com/list/ls083378033/

It's been a lot of fun going through all the other lists and seeing what favourites people were listing.

:cheers:
That's all, folks!

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30874
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#196

Post by mightysparks » September 20th, 2020, 12:28 am

Onderhond wrote:
September 19th, 2020, 10:05 pm
AdamH wrote:
September 19th, 2020, 9:16 pm
Not sure if you're aiming the first sentence at me or not but it has nothing to do with my opinion on this. I hope films reach 400 checks before the new poll so that new ones will replace them.
Nothing to do with you, just an argument I see popping up quite often that I think should have no weight at all.
Well, iCM is literally about working on lists and a major part of the site and the way it works is the gamification of these lists so that argument does kind of have a lot of weight in context...
"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
Onderhond
Posts: 4861
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#197

Post by Onderhond » September 20th, 2020, 7:49 am

mightysparks wrote:
September 20th, 2020, 12:28 am
Well, iCM is literally about working on lists
Not at all, although I understand some people do. I'd dare to wager it's only a minority of the ICM users.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30874
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#198

Post by mightysparks » September 20th, 2020, 8:35 am

Onderhond wrote:
September 20th, 2020, 7:49 am
mightysparks wrote:
September 20th, 2020, 12:28 am
Well, iCM is literally about working on lists
Not at all, although I understand some people do. I'd dare to wager it's only a minority of the ICM users.
Yea, but I mean that's the site's whole 'pull'. There's awards for lists, a film has to be on a list to be official etc. So I mean, to consider that users may be using the site in the way the site's intended to be used is kind of important.

I don't really work through lists anymore but lists are the only reason I come back to iCM.. And I prefer dynamic lists so to me the kind of change Adam proposed is a benefit to those working through lists rather than a hindrance.
"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
kingink
Posts: 2620
Joined: Jun 16, 2011
Contact:

#199

Post by kingink » September 20th, 2020, 8:36 am

I really didn't know how to do this. There were too many eligible films to add if I was going to add all my 8s. So I just used my favorite movies list. Not very comfortable with it, but better than not submitting any list at all.

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/unde ... l/kingink/


Post Reply