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 8 released June 27th)
Polls: 2010s (Results), 1974 (Results), 2019 awards (Jul 11th)
Challenges: Canada, Low Rated, Director
Film of the Week: Vinyan, August nominations (Jul 31st)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2E: Georgia vs Ukraine (Jul 16th)

Share your IMDb bell curve

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4305
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

Share your IMDb bell curve

#41

Post by Onderhond » March 16th, 2017, 2:01 pm

Image

My ratings are pretty evenly spread, the release year distribution is heavily skewed to modern cinema. Pretty self-explanatory.

User avatar
Cynical Cinephile
Posts: 2251
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Bosnia & Herzegovina
Contact:

#42

Post by Cynical Cinephile » March 16th, 2017, 2:12 pm

sol on Mar 16 2017, 06:51:33 AM wrote:
Cynical Cinephile on Mar 16 2017, 05:58:07 AM wrote:
sol on Mar 16 2017, 05:10:20 AM wrote:I don't think that is actually the problem. Everyone out there pretty much gets that "10 = excellent" and "1 = poor", however IMDb includes eight other values that we can assign to movies, and it is how everyone differentiates between these values that causes such crazily diverse bell curves. The issue if anything is that are too many choices with ten different possible ratings; iCheckMovies makes more sense as a way to rate movies since you only have three options: "check", "like" or "dislike".
Yeah, rating scales are vastly different. For me, a 6 is a dislike (well, more indifference than dislike). I know it shouldn't be, but I started like that 5-6 years ago and I'm in too deep to change it now. Anyway, 10 point rating scale really is too big. Do we really need 4 different points of dislike? If something failed, it failed, there's no need to contemplate how much it failed.

ICM's binary scale (it does leave an option of not choosing/just checking, so it's not technically binary) might seem too simplistic, but it saves people from meaningless time consumption. When you really think about it, you either liked, disliked or felt indifferent towards a film. That's all I need.
Indeed --- which is why 75% of the films that I see score either a 4, 5, 6 or 7 in my books. I only really need 'dislike', 'indifferent', 'liked' and 'liked a lot' myself, though it is cool to have some of the higher ratings on hand for the films that absolutely bowl me over.
Cynical Cinephile on wrote:On a side note, I never get people that take it even further and rate something 8,79. I always ask them how they come up with those numbers, why ,79 and not ,78? What makes that difference? I never got a sufficient answer.
I don't really get how moviegoers rate movies to two decimal places either. One decimal place I can understand though if you have a really good grip on what your ratings signify. I do, and with almost 55% of films that I have seen scoring a 6 or 7 in my books, it has reached the point where I can talk about films being "strong", "solid" or "weak" 6s or 7s. I have no idea how to work out whether a 3/10 film is closer to 2.8 or 3.2 for me because I hand out relatively few 3s, but if you gave me a bunch of films that I have rated a 7, I could definitely say whether they are closer to being 6s or 8s, if that makes any sense.

All that said and done, I don't really rely on my ratings. I mostly just use them because it makes list-making easier, particularly because I keep regularly updated numbered lists of the films that I have seen from every single year. I rarely share my ratings with others since the number alone says little (a 6 signifies something different for everyone, etc). The occasions when I do post ratings are when I want to reflect how much more I like some films than others, e.g. for the FGFF, but generally words say more than numbers and there is a very good reason why I abstain from including my ratings when I publish reviews on the weekly thread.
What I like about your write-ups the most is that you manage to portray your enthusiasm (or lack thereof) with your words. Hearing someone's thoughts gives better insight into how they felt about a film than just looking at the rating they gave it.

I've been thinking of doing the same thing for a while. I might even start this week. I'll probably still include some kind of love, like, dislike differentiation.
The truth is you're Donny, and I'm Walter. But I'm tryin', Ringo, I'm tryin' real hard to be The Dude.

:ICM: :letbxd: :imdb:

Tarris1
Posts: 236
Joined: Mar 19, 2016
Contact:

#43

Post by Tarris1 » March 16th, 2017, 2:21 pm

Image

10/10 1%, 9/10 4%, 8/10 18%, 7/10 46%, 6/10 21%, 5/10 6%, 1-4/10 5%

I'm still pretty new at movies, but looks like my bell curve will continue to look like this for the foreseeable future with perhaps the 8/10 likelihood falling slightly. 85% of my movies are between 6-8/10 which makes some sense to me as movie quality doesnt vary that much.

User avatar
GruesomeTwosome
Donator
Posts: 3039
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Industrial Wasteland, USA
Contact:

#44

Post by GruesomeTwosome » March 16th, 2017, 2:30 pm

I'll just type out my IMDB ratings breakdown below:

1: 20 (1%)
2: 35 (1%)
3: 78 (2%)
4: 159 (5%)
5: 326 (9%)
6: 620 (18%)
7: 918 (26%)
8: 912 (26%)
9: 374 (11%)
10: 78 (2%)


Some of the ratings breakdowns that people have posted look a little crazy to me, particularly those with a high amount of very low scores (or the majority of stuff rated a 5/10, as well). Perhaps it's time to take a hard look at what you value in film, and be just a tad more selective (maybe a little too blindly "check-hungry"?).
I’m to remember every man I've seen fall into a plate of spaghetti???

My IMDB profile
ICM
Letterboxd

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4305
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#45

Post by Onderhond » March 16th, 2017, 3:31 pm

GruesomeTwosome on Mar 16 2017, 08:30:42 AM wrote:Perhaps it's time to take a hard look at what you value in film, and be just a tad more selective (maybe a little too blindly "check-hungry"?).
2468 top list checks (6582 checks in total)

Being check-hungry isn't so much the problem, but once you've seen a certain number of films it becomes a bit harder to find films that truly excite you. The pool of interesting films you haven't seen yet also starts to dry up. And watching films outside your comfort zone may not result in high ratings, but it does help with general film knowledge, which is something that most film fans strive for I assume.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4547
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#46

Post by OldAle1 » March 16th, 2017, 3:41 pm

Onderhond on Mar 16 2017, 09:31:40 AM wrote:
GruesomeTwosome on Mar 16 2017, 08:30:42 AM wrote:Perhaps it's time to take a hard look at what you value in film, and be just a tad more selective (maybe a little too blindly "check-hungry"?).
2468 top list checks (6582 checks in total)

Being check-hungry isn't so much the problem, but once you've seen a certain number of films it becomes a bit harder to find films that truly excite you. The pool of interesting films you haven't seen yet also starts to dry up. And watching films outside your comfort zone may not result in high ratings, but it does help with general film knowledge, which is something that most film fans strive for I assume.
This is not at all my experience, after 30 years of being a pretty serious film buff and about 8000 films seen. I'm still just as excited about film as I've ever been - sure, sometimes my attention and interest wanes for a month, or even a year or two, but it's always come back. And the number of films I have yet to see that strike me as at least potentially great vastly dwarfs the number of great films I've already seen - I'll never live to see more than a small fraction of them.
Here's to the fools who dream.

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 8737
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#47

Post by sol » March 16th, 2017, 3:47 pm

Onderhond on Mar 16 2017, 09:31:40 AM wrote:
GruesomeTwosome on Mar 16 2017, 08:30:42 AM wrote:Perhaps it's time to take a hard look at what you value in film, and be just a tad more selective (maybe a little too blindly "check-hungry"?).
2468 top list checks (6582 checks in total)

Being check-hungry isn't so much the problem, but once you've seen a certain number of films it becomes a bit harder to find films that truly excite you. The pool of interesting films you haven't seen yet also starts to dry up. And watching films outside your comfort zone may not result in high ratings, but it does help with general film knowledge, which is something that most film fans strive for I assume.
Seconded... to a degree. I'm at just under 6000 checks myself and I am yet exhaust my supply of films that appeal to me. That said, a lot of the unseen films that appeal to my sensibilities are hard to track down, so if that's what you mean by ''hard to find'', then sure, would agree.

As for watching films outside of the comfort zone, it's actually a good way of coming across great films that I would have never expected to really warm towards. Sure, there are a LOT more misses than hits when venturing outside of what I know I like, but the odd new favourite or two that also comes up makes the whole thing worthwhile for me.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 8737
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#48

Post by sol » March 16th, 2017, 3:50 pm

OldAle1 on Mar 16 2017, 09:41:18 AM wrote:This is not at all my experience, after 30 years of being a pretty serious film buff and about 8000 films seen. I'm still just as excited about film as I've ever been - sure, sometimes my attention and interest wanes for a month, or even a year or two, but it's always come back. And the number of films I have yet to see that strike me as at least potentially great vastly dwarfs the number of great films I've already seen - I'll never live to see more than a small fraction of them.
Depends what Onderhond means by "hard to find" (see my response above). It is harder for me track down films that I am truly excited about than it once was, but there are indeed still plenty of films that I would love to see if only I could get my hands on them.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 8737
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#49

Post by sol » March 16th, 2017, 3:56 pm

Cynical Cinephile on Mar 16 2017, 08:12:44 AM wrote:What I like about your write-ups the most is that you manage to portray your enthusiasm (or lack thereof) with your words. Hearing someone's thoughts gives better insight into how they felt about a film than just looking at the rating they gave it.

I've been thinking of doing the same thing for a while. I might even start this week. I'll probably still include some kind of love, like, dislike differentiation.
Thanks; I try my hardest to get my reviews to reflect my feelings on any given film -- though I have also been known to get the balance wrong by concentrating a bit too much on one thing that irked me about a certain movie. :unsure:

Yeah, including "love", "like" etc at the end could be useful. On the CFB, we used to use the YES/yes/mixed/no/NO scale, though (similarly to numerical scores), I eventually found out that different users even had different ideas about what these five terms meant! :/
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
GruesomeTwosome
Donator
Posts: 3039
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Industrial Wasteland, USA
Contact:

#50

Post by GruesomeTwosome » March 16th, 2017, 3:59 pm

Onderhond on Mar 16 2017, 09:31:40 AM wrote:
GruesomeTwosome on Mar 16 2017, 08:30:42 AM wrote:Perhaps it's time to take a hard look at what you value in film, and be just a tad more selective (maybe a little too blindly "check-hungry"?).
2468 top list checks (6582 checks in total)

Being check-hungry isn't so much the problem, but once you've seen a certain number of films it becomes a bit harder to find films that truly excite you. The pool of interesting films you haven't seen yet also starts to dry up. And watching films outside your comfort zone may not result in high ratings, but it does help with general film knowledge, which is something that most film fans strive for I assume.
I agree that it's certainly a positive thing as a film fan to go out of your comfort zone; I'm certainly NOT advocating for confining yourself in a narrow window as far as the type of films you watch, but with some of these ratings distributions posted in this thread, they look like the ratings of someone who watched films selected almost entirely at random.

Most definitely watch films that may at first seem out of your comfort zone, but then find that you like some of these and in this opens up a whole new world of film exploration for you (awesome!). But if you've ventured out of your comfort zone, clearly have not enjoyed what you've found up to a certain point, but still keep watching and watching the stuff that you know you dislike, I think there comes a point for re-evaluation.

In any case, people's rating systems can be so vastly different from individual to individual, that a lot of this discussion may be moot anyways. I know on the IMDb boards there were people who mostly topped out at an "8" rating for great movies, "5" was still pretty good for them, etc.
I’m to remember every man I've seen fall into a plate of spaghetti???

My IMDB profile
ICM
Letterboxd

User avatar
insomnius
Posts: 762
Joined: Jan 10, 2013
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

#51

Post by insomnius » March 16th, 2017, 4:06 pm

Onderhond on Mar 16 2017, 09:31:40 AM wrote:
GruesomeTwosome on Mar 16 2017, 08:30:42 AM wrote:Perhaps it's time to take a hard look at what you value in film, and be just a tad more selective (maybe a little too blindly "check-hungry"?).
2468 top list checks (6582 checks in total)

Being check-hungry isn't so much the problem, but once you've seen a certain number of films it becomes a bit harder to find films that truly excite you. The pool of interesting films you haven't seen yet also starts to dry up. And watching films outside your comfort zone may not result in high ratings, but it does help with general film knowledge, which is something that most film fans strive for I assume.
For me it's the opposite. At 12.000+ films seen, the more I watch, the more I realize how much more good stuff there's out there yet to see.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4305
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#52

Post by Onderhond » March 16th, 2017, 4:19 pm

OldAle1 on Mar 16 2017, 09:41:18 AM wrote:This is not at all my experience, after 30 years of being a pretty serious film buff and about 8000 films seen.
Fair enough of course, people's experiences differ :)

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4305
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#53

Post by Onderhond » March 16th, 2017, 4:23 pm

GruesomeTwosome on Mar 16 2017, 09:59:35 AM wrote:but with some of these ratings distributions posted in this thread, they look like the ratings of someone who watched films selected almost entirely at random.
My low rating stem from official lists (I don't like classics) and watching stuff with my girlfriend. She likes Marvel and 40s musicals, I do not. She appreciates Disney and Pixar, I dislike it. But I don't mind watching all that stuff with her.

What might be a difficult to understand is that I like watching films in general, even when I don't like the films themselves. This might stem from the fact that I like talking about film, but can't find enough people that share my taste :D

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4547
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#54

Post by OldAle1 » March 16th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Onderhond on Mar 16 2017, 10:23:58 AM wrote:
GruesomeTwosome on Mar 16 2017, 09:59:35 AM wrote:but with some of these ratings distributions posted in this thread, they look like the ratings of someone who watched films selected almost entirely at random.
My low rating stem from official lists (I don't like classics) and watching stuff with my girlfriend. She likes Marvel and 40s musicals, I do not. She appreciates Disney and Pixar, I dislike it. But I don't mind watching all that stuff with her.

What might be a difficult to understand is that I like watching films in general, even when I don't like the films themselves. This might stem from the fact that I like talking about film, but can't find enough people that share my taste :D
The "I don't like classics" line strikes me as very weird for anybody on a forum like this, but I haven't been here that long so what do I know? It wasn't uncommon on IMDb (outside of the Classics Forum). I do understand watching a lot of stuff because of other people, let's face it we all have to grit our teeth sometimes for the sake of family and friends, but the mania over lists I guess I mostly outgrew some time ago - particularly given how many of the lists change regularly and how much work it is keeping up with them. I'd rather watch movies that fit my own tastes for the most part, though there is something to be said (as others have in this thread) for challenging oneself with stuff outside of one's comfort zone. I'm just not sure that finding such stuff on official lists is the best way to go about it.
Here's to the fools who dream.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4305
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#55

Post by Onderhond » March 16th, 2017, 5:06 pm

OldAle1 on Mar 16 2017, 10:59:56 AM wrote:The "I don't like classics" line strikes me as very weird for anybody on a forum like this, but I haven't been here that long so what do I know?
Most people on this forum will disagree with it, but that's fine. I really don't follow too many of the lists, apart from some more niche lists (like the LoveHK one). From every 10 films I watch, maybe 2-3 are "outside my comfort zone", I think that's a pretty fair average. I'm here mostly because true film forums (or any forum really) have become rare on the web and like I said earlier, I do like to talk film. So yeah, I'm a bit of a deviant, which also shows in my graphs.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4547
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#56

Post by OldAle1 » March 16th, 2017, 11:53 pm

Onderhond on Mar 16 2017, 11:06:36 AM wrote: I'm here mostly because true film forums (or any forum really) have become rare on the web and like I said earlier, I do like to talk film. So yeah, I'm a bit of a deviant, which also shows in my graphs.
My sentiments exactly. Lot of things I hated about the IMDb forums, but they did make discussions - in any depth you wanted them in - pretty easy. Many of the other forums I've spent time on over the last decade have declined, and it seems the world is turning to Facebook and Twitter - anything more than a meme or a couple of lines is just too much work for most people. Very sad.
Here's to the fools who dream.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30615
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#57

Post by mightysparks » March 17th, 2017, 12:14 am

Onderhond on Mar 16 2017, 10:23:58 AM wrote:What might be a difficult to understand is that I like watching films in general, even when I don't like the films themselves. This might stem from the fact that I like talking about film, but can't find enough people that share my taste :D
Yea I'm the same way. I'm as picky with film as I am with everything else and I was difficult to please to begin with and I rarely find films I like much these days. I hate it when people question my reasons for watching film if I don't like every film but my personal enjoyment of a film isn't the only reason to watch film. I don't care whether I like or dislike a film, it's just a new experience.
"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
GruesomeTwosome
Donator
Posts: 3039
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Industrial Wasteland, USA
Contact:

#58

Post by GruesomeTwosome » March 17th, 2017, 1:21 am

Onderhond on Mar 16 2017, 11:06:36 AM wrote:
OldAle1 on Mar 16 2017, 10:59:56 AM wrote:The "I don't like classics" line strikes me as very weird for anybody on a forum like this, but I haven't been here that long so what do I know?
Most people on this forum will disagree with it, but that's fine. I really don't follow too many of the lists, apart from some more niche lists (like the LoveHK one). From every 10 films I watch, maybe 2-3 are "outside my comfort zone", I think that's a pretty fair average. I'm here mostly because true film forums (or any forum really) have become rare on the web and like I said earlier, I do like to talk film. So yeah, I'm a bit of a deviant, which also shows in my graphs.
Good points there, and yep, we're here to discuss film after all! Just going by the hard numbers of ratings doesn't tell someone much.
I’m to remember every man I've seen fall into a plate of spaghetti???

My IMDB profile
ICM
Letterboxd

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24713
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#59

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » March 17th, 2017, 4:34 am

Here's what imdb gives me:
Image
and roughly the same ratings, but on a 1-100 scale:
Image
Clearly there are some ratings that I use more often than others, the notable outliers are 30, 35, 40, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70 Not to surprising since the lower half of my rating scale is rather sparse so I tend towards the round numbers more often. After that it's 74 (the minimum value to get a 7 on imdb) 84 (the highest value that translates to an 8) and 87(I don't know why)

I decided to look back at how my distribution has changed over the years, and it's a pretty clear shift
Imdb End of 2006
Image
Criticker End of 2006
Image
Spoiler: click to toggleShow
Criticker:
End of 2008
Image
End of 2010
Image
End of 2012
Image
End of 2014
Image
End of 2016
Image

Imdb
End of 2008
Image
End of 2010
Image
End of 2012
Image
End of 2014
Image
End of 2016
Image
Last edited by PeacefulAnarchy on March 17th, 2017, 4:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6881
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#60

Post by albajos » March 17th, 2017, 8:34 am

I was a top1000 user 10 years ago, but had a bit of hiatus, so I lost that.

In Norway the most common way to grade art is by die, so my votes are also transferable to that.

01/10 - 01/06 - 263 (5,21 %) Dislikes on ICM
02/10 - 02/06 - 446 (8,85 %)
03/10 - 02/06 - 376 (7,46 %)
04/10 - 03/06 - 424 (8,41 %)
05/10 - 03/06 - 628 (12,46 %)
06/10 - 04/06 - 760 (15,08 %)
07/10 - 04/06 - 795 (15,77 %)
08/10 - 05/06 - 711 (14,10 %) Will not vote for any movie less than 8/10 in any nomination
09/10 - 05/06 - 533 (10,57 %)
10/10 - 06/06 - 106 (2,10 %) Favorite on ICM

I do wonder if I should expand the 1/10 though. As some independent movies basically is on another scale.

Best years (rating):
01. 1955
02. 1957
03. 1954
04. 1939
05. 1952
---------
06. 1999
07. 1960
08. 2001
11. 2014
14. 1984
15. 1942
16. 1976

Best genres:
1. Film-noir
2. Documentary
3. Bography
4. Sport
5. Animation

Best year (number of different votes):
1. 1998

User avatar
Lammetje
Donator
Posts: 3777
Joined: Oct 04, 2013
Location: Poland
Contact:

#61

Post by Lammetje » June 29th, 2020, 9:21 pm

Lammetje wrote:
January 1st, 2016, 11:25 am
Image

My average rating is now 6.84 (down from 6.93 exactly one year ago).
Image

My average rating is now 6.78.
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
Teproc
Posts: 633
Joined: Sep 23, 2015
Contact:

#62

Post by Teproc » June 30th, 2020, 8:17 am

Pretty similar I suppose for me. I can't get my overall average rating though, I only see data per genres and years.

Image

User avatar
Lammetje
Donator
Posts: 3777
Joined: Oct 04, 2013
Location: Poland
Contact:

#63

Post by Lammetje » July 1st, 2020, 4:33 pm

Teproc wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 8:17 am
Pretty similar I suppose for me. I can't get my overall average rating though, I only see data per genres and years.

Image
I calculated my average rating manually. :P
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
Traveller
Posts: 1252
Joined: Dec 31, 2018
Location: Germany
Contact:

#64

Post by Traveller » July 1st, 2020, 5:37 pm

Image

Average rating of 5.75.
ICM
July Challenge: Image
But at the bottom, the immanent philosopher sees in the entire universe only the deepest longing for absolute annihilation, and it is as if he clearly hears the call that permeates all spheres of heaven: Redemption! Redemption! Death to our life! and the comforting answer: you will all find annihilation and be redeemed!

Post Reply