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 59 released September 18th: Talking Zero Budget Filmmaking with Art School Dropouts)
iCinema Magazine: WE ARE LIVE! (We just need more content)
ICMForum Film Festival 2022: Mon Nov 14 - Dec 12
Polls: Music Videos (Results), 2010 (Sep 25th), Senegal (Sep 30th), 500<400 (Oct 3rd), Japan (Oct 31st)
Challenges: Mexico/Central America/Caribbean, Travel the World, Silent Era
About: Welcome All New Members, Terms of Use, Q&A

ICM Forum's 500<400 : 2022 Edition : Nomination Thread (Due Oct-03)

500<400, Favourite 1001 movies, Doubling the Canon, Film World Cup and many other votes
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 5741
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#121

Post by Torgo »

jlfitz wrote: September 20th, 2022, 2:41 am https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/jlfi ... 00/jlfitz/

unrankled
The yearly return of jlfitz, this humble titan of ICM rankings.
^_^
User avatar
Tim2460
Posts: 10296
Joined: October 1st, 2018, 7:23 pm
Location: Dijon, France
Contact:

#123

Post by Tim2460 »

And ... we're abore 60 voters.
Image
User avatar
Rufus-T
Posts: 782
Joined: February 6th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#124

Post by Rufus-T »

Using the same list from last year. Ranked: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls083671991/
User avatar
airdolll
Posts: 67
Joined: July 15th, 2022, 11:01 pm
Contact:

#125

Post by airdolll »

A question I have: when making a group ranked list, could some of the groups consist of one sigle film?
Example:
Group 1: #1
Group 2: #2
Group 3: #3
Group 4: #4-10
User avatar
Tim2460
Posts: 10296
Joined: October 1st, 2018, 7:23 pm
Location: Dijon, France
Contact:

#126

Post by Tim2460 »

Why not... But your example is not the best : 1 2 3 movies will get the same point as the ranked 3 + group behind.
Out Java tools can't handle group ranking yet... So it's manual computing... The more complicated it gets... The more possibility of error rising.
Image
User avatar
GruesomeTwosome
Donator
Posts: 3980
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Industrial Wasteland, USA
Contact:

#128

Post by GruesomeTwosome »

GruesomeTwosome wrote: August 25th, 2022, 2:17 am https://www.imdb.com/list/ls020489598/ (ranked)
FYI, I just manually removed all of the 400+ check films that I still had on my list. Might still add a title or two if I watch anything worthy before the deadline.
I’m to remember every man I've seen fall into a plate of spaghetti???

My IMDB profile
ICM
Letterboxd
User avatar
airdolll
Posts: 67
Joined: July 15th, 2022, 11:01 pm
Contact:

#129

Post by airdolll »

Tim2460 wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 6:05 am Why not... But your example is not the best : 1 2 3 movies will get the same point as the ranked 3 + group behind.
Out Java tools can't handle group ranking yet... So it's manual computing... The more complicated it gets... The more possibility of error rising.
I don't think I understand it, sorry. Wouldn't it be like:
#1 - 100 pts
#2 - 99 pts
#3 - 98 pts
#4 - 94 pts
...
#10 - 94 pts

?

In any case, I wouldn't want to make it troublesome for you if it's a lot of extra work, so I might just make a group-ranked list with less groups or a partially ranked one
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 27060
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#130

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

airdolll wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 7:59 pm
Tim2460 wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 6:05 am Why not... But your example is not the best : 1 2 3 movies will get the same point as the ranked 3 + group behind.
Out Java tools can't handle group ranking yet... So it's manual computing... The more complicated it gets... The more possibility of error rising.
I don't think I understand it, sorry. Wouldn't it be like:
#1 - 100 pts
#2 - 99 pts
#3 - 98 pts
#4 - 94 pts
...
#10 - 94 pts

?

In any case, I wouldn't want to make it troublesome for you if it's a lot of extra work, so I might just make a group-ranked list with less groups or a partially ranked one
Yes you can do that, Tim's point is that a group of 1 is not a group, so computationally it makes no difference and writing it that way just risks confusion.
If you want
1
2
3
4-10
Then just say Top3 ranked and 4-10 grouped.
User avatar
airdolll
Posts: 67
Joined: July 15th, 2022, 11:01 pm
Contact:

#131

Post by airdolll »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 10:10 pm
airdolll wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 7:59 pm
Tim2460 wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 6:05 am Why not... But your example is not the best : 1 2 3 movies will get the same point as the ranked 3 + group behind.
Out Java tools can't handle group ranking yet... So it's manual computing... The more complicated it gets... The more possibility of error rising.
I don't think I understand it, sorry. Wouldn't it be like:
#1 - 100 pts
#2 - 99 pts
#3 - 98 pts
#4 - 94 pts
...
#10 - 94 pts

?

In any case, I wouldn't want to make it troublesome for you if it's a lot of extra work, so I might just make a group-ranked list with less groups or a partially ranked one
Yes you can do that, Tim's point is that a group of 1 is not a group, so computationally it makes no difference and writing it that way just risks confusion.
If you want
1
2
3
4-10
Then just say Top3 ranked and 4-10 grouped.
Ah, got it! Thanks a lot.
User avatar
Tim2460
Posts: 10296
Joined: October 1st, 2018, 7:23 pm
Location: Dijon, France
Contact:

#132

Post by Tim2460 »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 10:10 pm
airdolll wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 7:59 pm
Tim2460 wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 6:05 am Why not... But your example is not the best : 1 2 3 movies will get the same point as the ranked 3 + group behind.
Out Java tools can't handle group ranking yet... So it's manual computing... The more complicated it gets... The more possibility of error rising.
I don't think I understand it, sorry. Wouldn't it be like:
#1 - 100 pts
#2 - 99 pts
#3 - 98 pts
#4 - 94 pts
...
#10 - 94 pts

?

In any case, I wouldn't want to make it troublesome for you if it's a lot of extra work, so I might just make a group-ranked list with less groups or a partially ranked one
Yes you can do that, Tim's point is that a group of 1 is not a group, so computationally it makes no difference and writing it that way just risks confusion.
If you want
1
2
3
4-10
Then just say Top3 ranked and 4-10 grouped.
Thx PA : you explained it better than me ;) (l)
Image
User avatar
Tim2460
Posts: 10296
Joined: October 1st, 2018, 7:23 pm
Location: Dijon, France
Contact:

#134

Post by Tim2460 »

Updated @ 65

NB Voter Mode URL Count
001 mathiasa Ranked mathiasa (463) 448
002 rokp Ranked rokp (64) 61
003 beavis Unanked beavis (Unanked) 500
004 sol Ranked sol (500) 500
005 TraverseTown Ranked TraverseTown (640) 640
006 72aicm Ranked 250 72aicm (Ranked 250) 444
007 toromash Ranked toromash (193) 193
008 frbrown Ranked frbrown (446) 446
009 Mysterious Dude Ranked Mysterious Dude (220) 220
010 Traveller Ranked Traveller (200) 200
011 RolandKirkSunglasses Ranked RolandKirkSunglasses (125) 125
012 shugs Ranked shugs (54) 54
013 Lilarcor Ranked Lilarcor (485) 485
014 zzzorf Ranked zzzorf (500) 500
015 St. Gloede Ranked St. Gloede (714) 714
016 Gorro Ranked Gorro (500) 500
017 Perception de Ambiguity Ranked Perception de Ambiguity (8404) 8404
018 peeptoad Ranked 6 peeptoad (Ranked 6) 205
019 cinewest Ranked cinewest (199) 199
020 DudeLanez Unanked DudeLanez (Unanked) 182
021 murnaunosferatu Ranked murnaunosferatu (140) 140
022 blocho Unranked blocho (Unranked) 165
023 gunnar Group Ranked gunnar (Group Ranked) 364
024 Arkantos Ranked Arkantos (21) 21
025 GruesomeTwosome Ranked GruesomeTwosome (136) 136
026 sortile9io Ranked sortile9io (246) 246
027 Gordon_Gekko Ranked Gordon_Gekko (236) 236
028 filmbantha Ranked filmbantha (546) 546
029 Torgo Ranked Torgo (224) 224
030 dirty_score Ranked dirty_score (195) 195
031 klaus78 Ranked klaus78 (275) 275
032 Gershwin Ranked Gershwin (201) 201
033 cinephage Ranked cinephage (297) 297
034 zuma Ranked zuma (200) 200
035 beasterne Ranked beasterne (108) 108
036 Onderhond Ranked Onderhond (513) 513
037 Teproc Ranked 100 Teproc (Ranked 100) 183
038 AdamH Ranked AdamH (197) 197
039 joachimt Ranked joachimt (452) 452
040 Wonderful Rainbow Ranked Wonderful Rainbow (145) 145
041 russa03 Ranked russa03 (202) 202
042 pitchorneirda Group Ranked pitchorneirda (Group Ranked) 142
043 Lonewolf2003 Ranked 150 Lonewolf2003 (Ranked 150) 277
044 mightysparks Ranked mightysparks (177) 177
045 mjf314 Ranked mjf314 (174) 174
046 Caracortada Ranked Caracortada (126) 126
047 rnilsson19 Ranked rnilsson19 (455) 455
048 itsirc Unranked itsirc (Unranked) 61
049 Angel Glez Ranked 378 Angel Glez (Ranked 378) 549
050 flavo5000 unranked flavo5000 (unranked) 246
051 Mifune Ranked Mifune (120) 120
052 vortexsurfer Ranked vortexsurfer (250) 250
053 Apu Ranked Apu (182) 182
054 jeff_v Ranked jeff_v (288) 288
055 Melvelet Ranked Melvelet (238) 238
056 paul281f Ranked 60 paul281f (Ranked 60) 202
057 Lammetje Ranked Lammetje (52) 52
058 ororama Ranked ororama (264) 264
059 Marazmatique Ranked Marazmatique (92) 92
060 jlfitz unranked jlfitz (unranked) 500
061 1SO Ranked 1SO (199) 199
062 BaalMan Ranked BaalMan (201) 201
063 Rufus-T Ranked Rufus-T (100) 100
064 cayh Ranked cayh (228) 228
065 Captain_Zimmermann Ranked Captain_Zimmermann (68) 68
Image
Smoover
Posts: 704
Joined: August 24th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#135

Post by Smoover »

Last edited by Smoover on September 24th, 2022, 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 7882
Joined: May 17th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#136

Post by 3eyes »

arrgh, I started editing the last one and when I tried to delete the ones that no longer qualified it deleted the whole list. I may or may not manage a new edition. Stay tuned. (I don't suppose the last one I posted is still accessible here?)
:run: STILL the Gaffer!
User avatar
gunnar
Posts: 1000
Joined: June 6th, 2021, 3:38 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

#137

Post by gunnar »

3eyes wrote: September 24th, 2022, 4:53 pm arrgh, I started editing the last one and when I tried to delete the ones that no longer qualified it deleted the whole list. I may or may not manage a new edition. Stay tuned. (I don't suppose the last one I posted is still accessible here?)
Your IMDb list from 2019 still seems to be available: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls063864488/. You could edit that one or import it to ICM and then edit it if that would help.
User avatar
Tim2460
Posts: 10296
Joined: October 1st, 2018, 7:23 pm
Location: Dijon, France
Contact:

#138

Post by Tim2460 »

Again I'll be able to handle the above 400 few films if you left some... No worry
Last edited by Tim2460 on September 25th, 2022, 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
gromit82
Donator
Posts: 692
Joined: February 6th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: USA
Contact:

#140

Post by gromit82 »

Here's my ballot:
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/icm+ ... /gromit82/

Top 40 ranked, the rest unranked.
User avatar
Tim2460
Posts: 10296
Joined: October 1st, 2018, 7:23 pm
Location: Dijon, France
Contact:

#141

Post by Tim2460 »

Last Week to post your list. I'll start PM-ing the ones that forgot soon ,)
Image
User avatar
AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 13098
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#143

Post by AdamH »

I think that's 69 lists now? 55 more needed to equal last year but there's always a lot of late lists.
User avatar
AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 13098
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#144

Post by AdamH »

Tim2460 wrote: Yesterday, 9:09 am Last Week to post your list. I'll start PM-ing the ones that forgot soon ,)
Have you submitted a list yet?
User avatar
matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 3145
Joined: May 13th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#146

Post by matthewscott8 »

AdamH wrote: Yesterday, 12:48 pm I think that's 69 lists now? 55 more needed to equal last year but there's always a lot of late lists.
Can make sense to wait to vote with this one due to films having more chance of going over 400 the earlier the ballot.
User avatar
clemmetarey
Donator
Posts: 2617
Joined: November 20th, 2011, 7:00 am
Contact:

#147

Post by clemmetarey »

Thanks for the message Adam, I would have missed it otherwise

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/clem ... emmetarey/
User avatar
AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 13098
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#148

Post by AdamH »

matthewscott8 wrote: Yesterday, 2:13 pm
AdamH wrote: Yesterday, 12:48 pm I think that's 69 lists now? 55 more needed to equal last year but there's always a lot of late lists.
Can make sense to wait to vote with this one due to films having more chance of going over 400 the earlier the ballot.
Perhaps but the films get automatically removed anyway so no need to worry about.
User avatar
matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 3145
Joined: May 13th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#149

Post by matthewscott8 »

Btw is a ruling needed on Fanny and Alexander? I generated my list simply by sieving my favourites list mechanically (with a few manual adjustments near the end of the list, as can happen when you note the exclusions of a fairly arbitrary cutoff line), and now note that I have the TV / long version of F&A at #2. It seems to fit within the rules, but I wondered how many other people have taken this route, as presumably it's very well regarded, but not already in the 500 < 400.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 5741
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#150

Post by Torgo »

Just pick another title, there are enough to choose from. You yourself should be ashamed the most to give your precious #2 spot to a film more renowned than the rest of the list combined. :P ;)
I mean we all know it's only eligible because of some clunky IMDb process, every Fanny edition will have been watched by 1000+ people.
User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 7756
Joined: February 9th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#151

Post by OldAle1 »

Torgo wrote: Yesterday, 5:21 pm Just pick another title, there are enough to choose from. You yourself should be ashamed the most to give your precious #2 spot to a film more renowned than the rest of the list combined. :P ;)
I mean we all know it's only eligible because of some clunky IMDb process, every Fanny edition will have been watched by 1000+ people.
:cheers:

Yeah, weird ratings/numbers caused by films being listed twice really shouldn't be a reason to vote for something so famous. Also there's the fact that IMDb is so completely arbitrary when it comes to counting mini-series/film version of those mini-series separately - or not. And then icm follow up this erratic behavior of course.
It was the truth, vivid and monstrous, that all the while he had waited the wait was itself his portion..
User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 703
Joined: May 3rd, 2013, 6:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#152

Post by Harco »

Thanks, Adam, for the reminder!

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/harc ... 400/harco/

Ranked in three groups:

001-005: 5*.
006-030: 4*.
031-155: 3*.
:ICM: | :letbxd:
User avatar
matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 3145
Joined: May 13th, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#153

Post by matthewscott8 »

OldAle1 wrote: Yesterday, 5:25 pm
Torgo wrote: Yesterday, 5:21 pm Just pick another title, there are enough to choose from. You yourself should be ashamed the most to give your precious #2 spot to a film more renowned than the rest of the list combined. :P ;)
I mean we all know it's only eligible because of some clunky IMDb process, every Fanny edition will have been watched by 1000+ people.
:cheers:

Yeah, weird ratings/numbers caused by films being listed twice really shouldn't be a reason to vote for something so famous. Also there's the fact that IMDb is so completely arbitrary when it comes to counting mini-series/film version of those mini-series separately - or not. And then icm follow up this erratic behavior of course.
This one doesn't feel so arbitrary, as it has an entire two hours more footage. Also I am not super convinced that people have in fact seen it in this long form. In other ICM polls it has been given a separate entry I believe.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 5741
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#154

Post by Torgo »

Oh I'm fully convinced. The new entry even had less than 20 checks in 2018. You wouldn't have believed that either, right?
:)
It just emerged way past ICM's prime. You can assume it would have gained (more than) a mere 100 checks more in the 8 years since the site's birth, had it been featured correctly on the Criterion list from the beginning.
User avatar
Tim2460
Posts: 10296
Joined: October 1st, 2018, 7:23 pm
Location: Dijon, France
Contact:

#156

Post by Tim2460 »

AdamH wrote: Yesterday, 1:52 pm
Tim2460 wrote: Yesterday, 9:09 am Last Week to post your list. I'll start PM-ing the ones that forgot soon ,)
Have you submitted a list yet?
Hmmm I don't think I haver submitted an list for 400<500... Maybe I will!
Anyway thanks for the mass pm!
Image
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 5741
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#157

Post by Torgo »

Tim2460 wrote: Yesterday, 8:10 pm
AdamH wrote: Yesterday, 1:52 pm
Tim2460 wrote: Yesterday, 9:09 am Last Week to post your list. I'll start PM-ing the ones that forgot soon ,)
Have you submitted a list yet?
Hmmm I don't think I haver submitted an list for 400<500... Maybe I will!
wtf. What a sick twist to the whole story that is. :folded:
User avatar
AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 13098
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#158

Post by AdamH »

Tim2460 wrote: Yesterday, 8:10 pm
AdamH wrote: Yesterday, 1:52 pm
Tim2460 wrote: Yesterday, 9:09 am Last Week to post your list. I'll start PM-ing the ones that forgot soon ,)
Have you submitted a list yet?
Hmmm I don't think I haver submitted an list for 400<500... Maybe I will!
Anyway thanks for the mass pm!
Wow. The person posting about the lists and talking about messaging everyone hasn't posted a list themselves? What on earth is going on? :P
User avatar
gunnar
Posts: 1000
Joined: June 6th, 2021, 3:38 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

#160

Post by gunnar »

gunnar wrote: August 23rd, 2022, 5:40 am Group Ranked
Group 1 #1-2
Group 2 #3-20
Group 3 #21-39
Group 4 #40-75
Group 5 #76-109
Group 6 #110-321
Group 7 #322-364

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/unde ... /kaculler/

I think a half-life of 75 makes sense if it is something that would be considered.
I added a few films to my list so here are the new groups:

Group Ranked
Group 1 #1-2
Group 2 #3-21
Group 3 #22-40
Group 4 #41-77
Group 5 #78-112
Group 6 #113-328
Group 7 #329-371

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/unde ... /kaculler/
Post Reply