Welcome to the ICM Forum.
Check out our Magazine

If you notice any issues please post in the Q&A thread. Email issue should be fixed. If you encounter this issue, contact PeacefulAnarchy
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 54 released July 1st: The Disappointment That is Leos Carax' Annette)
iCinema Magazine: WE ARE LIVE! (We just need more content)
ICMForum Film Festival 2022: Mon Nov 14 - Dec 12
Polls: 1990s (Results), Germany (May 30th), 2021 (Jun 30th), New Zealand (Jul 3rd), Swan Songs (Jun 30th), 1962 (Jul 30th), Performers (Jul 31st), Unofficial Checks (Jul 31st)
Challenges: Canadian, Unofficial Movies, Personal Toplists
About: Welcome All New Members, Terms of Use, Q&A

Which official lists shouldn't be official?

Post Reply
beasterne
Posts: 1225
Joined: May 22nd, 2013, 6:00 am
Contact:

#281

Post by beasterne »

Well this definitely stirred up a lot of conversation! Thanks everyone for sharing their thoughts. I will say that I agree with whoever said that more lists like the Cinema Tropical lists would be welcome. If we had other similar lists from other regions and time periods, then I would probably feel differently about the size and scope of these two in particular. So I like the idea of keeping them the way they are if we’re saying that this is the kind of list official lists should aspire to be like :)
User avatar
cinephage
Donator
Posts: 4438
Joined: November 11th, 2011, 7:00 am
Contact:

#282

Post by cinephage »

It this this time of the year, when people get bored and decided to suppress lists on a whim ?

I, for one, do enjoy the tropical lists, thay are varied, exotic and challenging. Their length guarantees to avoid the systematic overlap with other transnational lists. These lists cover a wide range of countries, and mostly valuable films. These are good, solid; lists. Please leave them alone.

I understand one doesn't like a list, what I don't understand is the need to decide for others. Just leave the lists alone and enjoy other lists, there's enough for everyone. The lack of stability is this website's greatest flaw. You need to fight the urge for constant change, it doesn't make any sense, it's just chaos for the sake of novelty, and it reflects poorly on the quality of the site itself.
User avatar
Lakigigar
Posts: 3125
Joined: October 31st, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

#283

Post by Lakigigar »

The only thing that needs to be replaced are the obscure internet forum user lists from sites that are today defunct and are non-dynamical. They are annoying, especially since they're used as an argument why other forum lists that are literally a 100 times better aren't added. And secondly, the entire essence of the site is recommendations for other people. I'm sure "users" can have a pretty good understanding, i don't think the difference between critics and users is that big, unless you think a forum like this isn't capable of doing that, and to be fair we have great lists so this forum is proof that user lists can be great.

Moviesense and Filmtotaal are both defunct, while we have Moviemeter top 1000, our own top 1001 (sure wouldn't add something new but still way more qualitative), TSPDT public poll and letterboxd top 250 or other letterboxd lists like the female director one or the documentary one.

I don't think you need genre lists and decade lists for all of those, and even for IMDb it can be too much, but

https://letterboxd.com/darrencb/list/le ... ror-films/
https://letterboxd.com/lifeasfiction/li ... animation/
https://letterboxd.com/jack/list/women- ... narrative/
https://letterboxd.com/jack/list/offici ... ary-films/

are all great ones to be added. We do have a TSZDT list maybe so maybe the horror list would conflict with that one, making the lboxd one obsolete. But the others seem all useful, even though they wouldn't add a bunch of "new official films" but few of newly added lists would or do that.

The IMDb ones also have a few disadvantages. If a film is approved on IMDb and has a high rating, it will be automatically in several ones, the decade list, the general list as well as all the genre lists of IMDb (and it feels like IMDb has too much weight on that). Also what genre a certain film is very subjective. I found it weird to see "Waves" was official because of an appearance in the IMDb sports list (1. found it surprising it was on none other list and 2. i found it even more surprising that from all lists the IMDb sports one give it the official status, because i don't consider it a sports film).

A film like Reservoir Dogs has 5 official appearances because of IMDb. The top 250 appearance, the independent one, the thriller list, the crime list and the 1990s one. And that's with a lot of films the case. It feels like 5 times what should've been one maybe, although i understand this cannot easily be "fixed", and it is better than no appearance, but it is based on one thing in particular and it's the IMDb rating.

I think letterboxd and the TSPDT public poll are the most important "user lists" to be added. While Moviesense and Filmtotaal should disappear.
If we ask ourselves, what does IMDb have letterboxd doesn't have, that justifies 37 IMDb lists and 0 letterboxd lists, i can't really answer that and in truth there's no answer. Letterboxd also has the more active userbase right now.

IMDb however eventually is fine. I just don't think it should be used as an "excuse" to prevent inclusion of other lists (if the argument is: "but we have IMDb".)

MovieSense101 and Filmtotaal 100 annoy me. And also Fok top 250 might be getting obsolete. They also have one major flaw. All those lists are from dutch internet board sites, so it isn't an accurate view of "internet users worldwide". Letterboxd and TSPDT public poll don't have these issues (and IMDb and Reddit neither). But when it comes to user lists, there's a very strong "dutch bias". Those sites are not representative of the internet today (in terms of identity) and are non-dynamic lists.

TSPDT public poll and letterboxd should be prioritized imo, while moviesense101 and filmtotaal are maybe the only 2 lists that have no reason to be official (in the slightest). The internet evolves.
ICM | RYM | last.fm | lboxd
Spoiler
Image
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 10481
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#284

Post by xianjiro »

cinephage wrote: June 14th, 2022, 7:57 am The lack of stability is this website's greatest flaw. You need to fight the urge for constant change, it doesn't make any sense, it's just chaos for the sake of novelty, and it reflects poorly on the quality of the site itself.
Is this just in terms of a few people writing that they'd like to see this or that list made unofficial or do you feel the adoption of new lists (let's skip the idea of replacements for now) fits with those ideas?
User avatar
cinephage
Donator
Posts: 4438
Joined: November 11th, 2011, 7:00 am
Contact:

#285

Post by cinephage »

xianjiro wrote: June 14th, 2022, 9:30 am
cinephage wrote: June 14th, 2022, 7:57 am The lack of stability is this website's greatest flaw. You need to fight the urge for constant change, it doesn't make any sense, it's just chaos for the sake of novelty, and it reflects poorly on the quality of the site itself.
Is this just in terms of a few people writing that they'd like to see this or that list made unofficial or do you feel the adoption of new lists (let's skip the idea of replacements for now) fits with those ideas?
I feel people working on lists download, buy DVDs or Blurays, they play the game set by the existence of the list. By making a list unofficiel, you're pulling the run from under such people's feet.
The unstability of the lists is discouraging. It's a massive turndown to people who enjoy the gamification of the site. Changing the rules in midcourse is unfair and spoils the fun.
I don't have anything against new lists, no matter what the criteria are. I'm addressing the removal of the status. I feel that you can't build a house if you keep changing its foundation. Once official, lists should remain so.
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 10481
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#286

Post by xianjiro »

cinephage wrote: June 14th, 2022, 9:44 am
xianjiro wrote: June 14th, 2022, 9:30 am
cinephage wrote: June 14th, 2022, 7:57 am The lack of stability is this website's greatest flaw. You need to fight the urge for constant change, it doesn't make any sense, it's just chaos for the sake of novelty, and it reflects poorly on the quality of the site itself.
Is this just in terms of a few people writing that they'd like to see this or that list made unofficial or do you feel the adoption of new lists (let's skip the idea of replacements for now) fits with those ideas?
I feel people working on lists download, buy DVDs or Blurays, they play the game set by the existence of the list. By making a list unofficiel, you're pulling the run from under such people's feet.
The unstability of the lists is discouraging. It's a massive turndown to people who enjoy the gamification of the site. Changing the rules in midcourse is unfair and spoils the fun.
I don't have anything against new lists, no matter what the criteria are. I'm addressing the removal of the status. I feel that you can't build a house if you keep changing its foundation. Once official, lists should remain so.
Thanks for the clarification! :thumbsup: What you write makes sense to me. If I understand correctly, and let me use the horror and TSZDT lists for discussion, you'd prefer to have kept the old horror list as official and added the TSZDT list (let's just accept it as a quality list for purpose of discussion) as a second horror list, right?
User avatar
cinephage
Donator
Posts: 4438
Joined: November 11th, 2011, 7:00 am
Contact:

#287

Post by cinephage »

That's right. To me, this is a game, and changing rules in the middle is, to say the least, annoying. If you play the game, the "seriousness" of the source doesn"t have much value. The value comes from the fact the list is official on the site. I don't care whether a list is deemed better than another, as this is extremely subjective in my opinion (I still think Monty's samurai list was quite superior to the one that was adopted, for example). But I dislike seeing a list lose its status. I'm still working on the old horror list, since you mention it as an example, and have seen 35 titles of it since it lost its status. Some of them overlap Lauren's replacement list, others don't, but I don't see a point in removing that status to that list.
I enjoy the new, longer list, but I don't see the point in removing a list's status, when site members have been using it for guidance as a means to explore a genre or a country for some time...
Like books or movies, lists belong to a moment, and ave value as such. I don't care for novelty or trying to improve things all the time. If a list works for me, I don't want another, better one. I will buy a new book with another approach to a genre I like, but I won't burn my older book, the books will stand next to one another on my shelf. I don"t see the need to constantly improve lists. A new critique isn't better or smarter than an older one, even though his list will include more contemporary films.
Anyway, no list lost its status this time, so I just gor carried away in expressing how I feel about such replacements.
User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 7212
Joined: June 3rd, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

#288

Post by Fergenaprido »

Re: The Cinema Tropical lists, I wasn't a mod when the 2000s one was adopted, but I think it was chosen as it complemented the cien años list, which only went up to 1999. But I could be mistaken. The 2010s was just a continuation of that logic.

I doubt either list will be unadopted, unless they're replaced by a better list(s) that covers the same scope. I'm all for removing titles that have only 1 vote (I think official icm lists should highlight the best, not everything mentioned, but this issue comes up regularly and no decision for consistency seems to be reached).

I have a country breakdown of the Lat Am lists, which I'll share here once I get access to my files back. Argentina, Brazil and Mexico do indeed dominate those three lists, followed by Colombia, Chile, and Cuba.
🧚‍♂️🦫
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 3088
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Contact:

#289

Post by kongs_speech »

Fergenaprido wrote: June 18th, 2022, 7:01 pm I'm all for removing titles that have only 1 vote (I think official icm lists should highlight the best, not everything mentioned, but this issue comes up regularly and no decision for consistency seems to be reached).
I would like to voice opposition to this. The lists should remain as they are. It's how they were adopted and it's how they should stay.
🏳️‍⚧️ (she/her)
Mr. Blonde wrote: Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite?
Quartoxuma wrote: A deeply human, life-affirming disgusting check whore.
First to check CODA (2021)
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 5296
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#290

Post by Torgo »

Fergenaprido wrote: June 18th, 2022, 7:01 pm I'm all for removing titles that have only 1 vote (I think official icm lists should highlight the best, not everything mentioned, but this issue comes up regularly and no decision for consistency seems to be reached).
:ICM:
User avatar
Lilarcor
Donator
Posts: 3170
Joined: June 14th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#291

Post by Lilarcor »

The Jonathan Rosenbaum list contains 1133 films with just one vote.
User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 537
Joined: May 6th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#292

Post by Tasselfoot »

Torgo wrote: June 18th, 2022, 9:38 pm
Fergenaprido wrote: June 18th, 2022, 7:01 pm I'm all for removing titles that have only 1 vote (I think official icm lists should highlight the best, not everything mentioned, but this issue comes up regularly and no decision for consistency seems to be reached).
:ICM:
:ICM:
User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 7212
Joined: June 3rd, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

#293

Post by Fergenaprido »

Lilarcor wrote: June 18th, 2022, 10:14 pm The Jonathan Rosenbaum list contains 1133 films with just one vote.
Yes, I'm aware. But it's a different beast than polls. I didn't intend to rehash this discussion, though; I only wanted to acknowledge the original poster's concerns and make it know that it is something the mods are aware of, and assure others that there is no plan to unadopt these (or any other official list) at this time. Sorry for being unclear earlier.
🧚‍♂️🦫
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 3088
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Contact:

#294

Post by kongs_speech »

People are not entitled to shorter lists just to make their trophy hunts easier. Shortening that list now would be very distasteful. If it wasn't to include films with one vote, that should have been decided prior to adoption.
🏳️‍⚧️ (she/her)
Mr. Blonde wrote: Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite?
Quartoxuma wrote: A deeply human, life-affirming disgusting check whore.
First to check CODA (2021)
User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 537
Joined: May 6th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#295

Post by Tasselfoot »

Image

and yes, i'm advocating for a longer list.
User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 7212
Joined: June 3rd, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

#296

Post by Fergenaprido »

Tasselfoot wrote: June 23rd, 2022, 12:10 am Image

and yes, i'm advocating for a longer list.
:mw_confused:

But 500 <500 is no clearer than 500 <400 without context or explanation.

And you're advocating for a higher threshold with that meme, not a longer list.
🧚‍♂️🦫
User avatar
erde
Posts: 440
Joined: January 2nd, 2019, 9:13 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

#297

Post by erde »

Tasselfoot wrote: June 23rd, 2022, 12:10 am Image

and yes, i'm advocating for a longer list.
I have also thought that it would be nice to have a short explanation in the list description why the threshold is just 400 and not, say, 500 (or a link to a page where there is one, if the explanation is longer). I'm sure that there were good reasons for the decision at the time, and it would be informative for the user of the list to know about them.
Image
mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 12317
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#298

Post by mjf314 »

erde wrote: June 23rd, 2022, 5:40 am I have also thought that it would be nice to have a short explanation in the list description why the threshold is just 400 and not, say, 500 (or a link to a page where there is one, if the explanation is longer). I'm sure that there were good reasons for the decision at the time, and it would be informative for the user of the list to know about them.
The threshold is 400 because (at the time the threshold was decided) films with more than 400 checks seemed to have a reasonable chance of making it onto the iCM Forum's 1001 Favourite Movies, but films with fewer than 400 checks had more difficulty making it onto that list. So the idea was for each film to have a reasonable chance of making it onto at least one of the two lists.

If the threshold was decided today, it might have been higher. I think I asked a few years ago if the threshold should be changed, but if I remember correctly, most people preferred to leave the threshold as is.
Post Reply