iCM Decade List Movie Confusion

[xianjiro]

Okay, one issue I'm noticing - especially with the Pre 1910s Top 100 list - is checks for films that may or may not be the right film. For example:

https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/la+ ... nsorcelee/

cobweb wrote but provides no documentation:

Indeed, the short made in 1906 was titled La maison hantée ("the haunted house") and we don't know what it's about.

The short that we are all watching online is La maison ensorcelée (literally "the bewitched house") and it was made in 1908.

IMDB only has one bogus entry mixing the two shorts.

How does this relate to the 7 minute clip at (which doesn't include title information)? And there is also a 6 minute truncated version floating about but which does include a title card.

Also referenced is https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/le+ ... ante-1908/

Anyone have any ideas how we can deal with this sort of confusion on the new list(s)? (I've not put as much effort into the 1910s or 1920s lists yet.) It also seems for official checks the Mods should clarify what film is the correct film. This is a bit annoying and confusing.

[joachimt]

Everything on IMDb fits the movie I watched. If cobweb is right, then the only flaw on the IMDb and iCM pages is the year. So change 1906 to 1908 (better find proof first) and his comment would be redundant.

[Torgo]

It also seems for official checks the Mods should clarify what film is the correct film.

I don't know if that's really included in their job description.
Let the ICM hivemind do the thing they do, it usually works the best. Some crazily enthusiastic if not obsessed folks up there - thank God!

[AdamH]

https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/danse+serpentine/ has 91 checks and 3 favourites and is a lost film. All, presumably, mistaking it for https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/dan ... tine-1897/

[xianjiro]

It also seems for official checks the Mods should clarify what film is the correct film.

I don't know if that's really included in their job description.
Let the ICM hivemind do the thing they do, it usually works the best. Some crazily enthusiastic if not obsessed folks up there - thank God!

While it makes sense to crowdsource the research, I think what's lacking is a definitive statement at some point. After my initial post, I thought about what I'd like to see and it's not necessarily a YouTube link since those may come and go. (and after they go, that documentation is lost)

For official checks that are disputed, it's fine to put the 'conversation' in the comments, but at some point a user should be able to request an official review. I'd really like to see an "iCM Official" account created and used to post comments about what is the official check -- I'm thinking of how Catalogue Lumiere has screenshots that can be used to judge if it's the correct clip or not. Does that make sense?

[xianjiro]

Everything on IMDb fits the movie I watched. If cobweb is right, then the only flaw on the IMDb and iCM pages is the year. So change 1906 to 1908 (better find proof first) and his comment would be redundant.

I've never tried to change a year on IMDb. Do you think this would qualify as proof?



While I think authenticity can be debated, it would seem Nederlands Filmmuseum, if an accredited institution, would be a reputable source.

If so, then this is most likely the correct film but the problem is the ending (about a minute) is missing. Other than the colorization issue and lack of a title card, the other film is the same and a more complete version.

[Torgo]

Does that make sense?

It does, totally

It's only that I feel we didn't make much use of such an authority during the first decade of ICM. It would have to be both the (active) guys to do the moderation back then - essentially looking over the users' shoulders to make sure they do everything right to deserve a check. Of course that would've been absurd considering the other work they already had with the site. Then, honorary moderators were introduced. They do keep an eye out to fight rampant and blatant cheating especially in the upper parts of the charts; but it's never been, like .. contacting users if they truly saw The Clock in its entirety, or if they watched the correct rip of Empire or didn't sleep off during Shoah; under penalty of removing the check. To this day, it is unclear whether users are "allowed" to take away a check for unsubbed films in a language they don't understand. And all that.

Am I drifting off too much? Maybe you know what I mean: as soon as we establish some sort of check police, even if the matter is pretty clear - like if something is the right film actually - we're about to open a can of worms.

Good thing I don't get too crazy about the 1900ish lists ..

[xianjiro]

Am I drifting off too much? Maybe you know what I mean: as soon as we establish some sort of check police, even if the matter is pretty clear - like if something is the right film actually - we're about to open a can of worms.

I get what you're saying, but this is less about check policing and more a check guidance. Especially when there is conflicting information presented by the userbase, it would be really helpful for iCM OFFICIAL to add some guidance to help users make the best choice.

I'm still trying to figure out what happened Harco's request viewtopic.php?t=3790&view=unread#p796832 -- and while this is a slightly different issue, the deleting of comments with dead links might not be our best approach since it makes it harder to research. I just found a link on Letterboxd that likely was the same as we once had posted. I found a reference to it - viewtopic.php?p=793937&hilit=G+D8KlpioYQ#p793937 At least we can search here on the Youtube link -- in this case I searched for "G-D8KlpioYQ" and now know we deleted that link from iCM. Not sure if we can search the official forum the same way though as I've not figured out a test case there.

[joachimt]

Everything on IMDb fits the movie I watched. If cobweb is right, then the only flaw on the IMDb and iCM pages is the year. So change 1906 to 1908 (better find proof first) and his comment would be redundant.

I've never tried to change a year on IMDb. Do you think this would qualify as proof?

Spoiler

While I think authenticity can be debated, it would seem Nederlands Filmmuseum, if an accredited institution, would be a reputable source.

If so, then this is most likely the correct film but the problem is the ending (about a minute) is missing. Other than the colorization issue and lack of a title card, the other film is the same and a more complete version.

Enough for me.

[xianjiro]

Everything on IMDb fits the movie I watched. If cobweb is right, then the only flaw on the IMDb and iCM pages is the year. So change 1906 to 1908 (better find proof first) and his comment would be redundant.

I've never tried to change a year on IMDb. Do you think this would qualify as proof?

Spoiler

While I think authenticity can be debated, it would seem Nederlands Filmmuseum, if an accredited institution, would be a reputable source.

If so, then this is most likely the correct film but the problem is the ending (about a minute) is missing. Other than the colorization issue and lack of a title card, the other film is the same and a more complete version.

Enough for me.

Just looked at the IMDb page and see one possible source of the confusion

Distributors
Pathé Frères (1906) (France) (theatrical)
Pathé Frères (1908) (France) (theatrical)
Pathé Frères (1908) (United States) (theatrical)
Pathé Frères (1906) (United States) (theatrical)

Looks like the film was released twice? My understanding is this was common in that era and I'm not sure that a second release with a different year attached would qualify as a separate film in any other circumstance unless the content was substantially different and only the name recycled. Do we have any proof of that? Yes, maybe no copies of the 1906 print are extant, but even if a scene were added, edited, or removed before creation of the 1908 print, the two currently appear to me to be one and the same with the same writer/director/cinematographer.

At this point I see no reason to try and change the year on IMDb.

[joachimt]

I've never tried to change a year on IMDb. Do you think this would qualify as proof?

Spoiler

While I think authenticity can be debated, it would seem Nederlands Filmmuseum, if an accredited institution, would be a reputable source.

If so, then this is most likely the correct film but the problem is the ending (about a minute) is missing. Other than the colorization issue and lack of a title card, the other film is the same and a more complete version.

Enough for me.

Just looked at the IMDb page and see one possible source of the confusion

Distributors
Pathé Frères (1906) (France) (theatrical)
Pathé Frères (1908) (France) (theatrical)
Pathé Frères (1908) (United States) (theatrical)
Pathé Frères (1906) (United States) (theatrical)

Looks like the film was released twice? My understanding is this was common in that era and I'm not sure that a second release with a different year attached would qualify as a separate film in any other circumstance unless the content was substantially different and only the name recycled. Do we have any proof of that? Yes, maybe no copies of the 1906 print are extant, but even if a scene were added, edited, or removed before creation of the 1908 print, the two currently appear to me to be one and the same with the same writer/director/cinematographer.

At this point I see no reason to try and change the year on IMDb.

In that case I see no reason to assume we watched the wrong movie.