Btw, I've already found at least one film that isn't in your list that is actually discussed in the book (2nd paragraph, page 19): https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/edi ... +a+sneeze/
They just don't call it out by the IMDB name but it's described and given more context that any of the Holly Hunter films mentioned above.
I deliberately left the Sneeze-film out because the film's title is never explicitly mentioned. Nor is Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde on page 108 for that matter (but that film is somehow included). The reason of why the Abbott and Costello-movie is included is solely because it is listed at the index. This doesn't necessarily mean that I disagree with you on the Sneeze-film, though (as long as you include and exclude films from the list by using a consistent method). But I've been consistent on the list I created and have only included titles explicitly mentioned.
If you do propose to add the Sneeze film to the Time Out-list, please add Nachts, wenn Dracula erwacht (1970) to the Amos Vogel-list as well; it is another film discussed but never explicitly mentioned in the original version. Actually, the film IS indeed mentioned in the revised version of Film as a Subvesive Art.
flavo5000 wrote: ↑May 14th, 2023, 12:42 pm
Hi, mod here. I have the book and am actively looking at it. Just to be clear though. "Accuracy" is a relative term and isn't something that's cut and dried, especially when it comes to the TimeOut list. For instance, yes there are films discussed in the book that aren't found in the index. That's one problem. But also, there are films in the index that are already on the official list that are either not mentioned or only mentioned as a credit of an actor/director discussing another unrelated film. Should those be included? We have to look at intent of the list, not just blindly put every single movie that's possibly mentioned in the book at all. Because after all, following the approach of just adding every random mention creates just as inaccurate a list by putting films on there that shouldn't be.
I wasn't going to post here, but since my name keeps being brought up, I feel obligated to do so. I find this all very tiresome, however, as it feels like I've had to explain myself/explain on behalf of the mods numerous times in various threads on this forum, and it never seems to stick. So you'll have to excuse me if I come across as a bit grumpy in this.
I wasn't aware of this thread until Apu PMed me about it. We talked through private messages about the list, and I thought all was good there, as Apu even apologized for coming across as harsh & overly critical and insisted he had no ill will towards me or any of the other mods despite his words. However, he then continued to use harsh words publicly, seemingly choosing to ignore any explanation I gave in private or that others gave in the thread, simply parroting the same things about "hypocrisy" and "accuracy" to each reply given, so much so that those words seem to have lost all meaning.
I agree that I've been reminded several times within the last year about the discrepancies in the Time Out list, and I've said I'd look into them, only to have other things come up and push it off my list of priorities, and I've also forgotten about the list. It's been more or less static on icm for a decade before being brought up last year, so it's not something that says to me "the community urgently needs this to be fixed". Do I want to have accurate lists? Absolutely. Do I take my responsibilities as a moderator seriously? Absolutely. Am I merely human and get sidetracked and overwhelmed with other projects and cannot devote every free waking moment to icm work? Absolutely. Sure, I could have bought the book, waited for it to arrive, gone through it fastidiously and documented every single film mentioned and where, and then updated the list after hours and hours of work. But I didn't. Instead, I chose to work on icm projects that were less time-intensive and of greater perceived value to the community, such as the quick updates to the BFI guide, or the TSPDT Noir list, or the regular adoption rounds, or the update to the Swedish list, or the update to the Sight & Sound decade poll (among other things).
My work on this forum has also been questioned; likely referring to the country polls that I host, but perhaps also the regular polls and occasional challenges I host, seemingly insinuating that if I have so much free time to devote to those, then why can't I work on the official icm work instead? I participate here on this forum because I enjoy it. I like running the country polls because I find the work rewarding and full of discovery. I don't think I need to exclusively work on official icm work all the time, especially when it's not always as fun... switching things up helps to keep my mod work relatively enjoyable and rewarding as well, instead of feeling like I'm slaving away at a job I no longer enjoy.
I have tried, in my few years as a mod, to be as transparent as possible about my opinions, the workload, and the progress that we make (or don't make) on running and maintaining the site and updating and adopting the lists. So yeah, to echo what Joachim said, Apu's words and tone in this thread were rather insulting and unnecessarily harsh/rude. While icm is not a democracy, I still feel beholden to the users and try to convey as much information as possible to let folks know that we do listen and we are working for the community as a whole, including holding myself accountable when I know I'm not delivering on promises that I've made.
As to why I read this thread without replying, as Torgo pointedly asked? Since I was talking with Apu privately, I didn't feel the need to reply here yet, but I still read the conversation. I don't think mods need to reply to every single thread here; as Joachim said, if you really want to get our attention about something wrong with the site, post it on the official forum; I try to reply to everything I come across there within 24 hours if another mod hasn't, though occasionally it takes longer if we need to confer in private before replying. It's so easy for things to get lost on this forum among and within all the different threads and posts. And when someone comes in hot like Apu did it doesn't really create a welcoming environment for discussion and makes me I wonder, "why bother?"
As to why we don't improve the Time Out list by piecemeal? In my opinion, it creates more room for error that way, and it ends up creating extra work, and I find it dissatisfying to have incremental fixes - I'd rather fix it all in one go, even if that means it takes a long time and it stays outdated/broken in the meantime. That's a personal preference.
Nopros' letterboxd list is interesting, but that's about Amos Vogel which is another can of worms that I'm punting forward to deal with in the summer, since I need to refamiliarize myself with the book. That list contains every title mentioned, however, which is different from the version we have on icm which seems to (attempt to) distinguish between films merely mentioned or with only images and those with actual text written about them. But thank you for the link, as its another good resource to have on hand when I get around to working on the list.
Thank you to kongs & Lonewolf for coming to my/our defense; it is appreciated. Thanks to Joachim and flavo for adding a mod perspective as well, and for helping to take some of the workload of this and other forum projects/tasks.
It seems that no matter how many times I explain myself, some folks will simply refuse to accept the explanations, and I just have to live with that and ignore their negativity. I hope this is the last time I have to address something like this, and I'm sure I've forgotten to reply to someone or mention something else, but I find this all very exhausting. So if nothing I've said here makes sense to you or justifies and perceived inaction, well, I suppose we're just not able to see eye to eye on this.
I know the vast majority of users and forumgoers appreciate the work that we moderators do, and for that I am grateful. It can be a lot of work at times; if you're interested in potentially helping out the moderators with the behind-the-scenes work, send me a message and we can talk.
1) It can be very difficult following things on this forum since a single topic can have multiple conversations happening in a single topic, people routinely forget where they were discussing something and continue the conversation opaquely on another thread, and then there's the issue of this vs the official forum.
2) The book is showing as in-transit between the main library and my local branch, so I should have it on Thursday. However, weird things have been happening with processing ILLs since they reopened after the pandemic and items can sometimes go back and forth between the libraries for who knows what reason before then end up on the shelf for pickup. Looking forward to checking it out for myself.
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 17th, 2023, 6:37 am
... such as the quick updates to the TSPDT Noir list ...
The worst noir is better than the best Time Out accurate list!
(Well maybe not, but geez, the amount of time and energy spent on the topic - just watch some movies and everything will ultimately work out.)
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 17th, 2023, 6:37 am
... such as the quick updates to the TSPDT Noir list ...
The worst noir is better than the best Time Out accurate list!
(Well maybe not, but geez, the amount of time and energy spent on the topic - just watch some movies and everything will ultimately work out.)
but ... but, what if ... what if the movie, you know, the one movie, that actually will change just one person's life ... aw hell, it's Madison time !!!
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 17th, 2023, 6:37 am
As to why I read this thread without replying, as Torgo pointedly asked? Since I was talking with Apu privately, I didn't feel the need to reply here yet, but I still read the conversation. I don't think mods need to reply to every single thread here; as Joachim said, if you really want to get our attention about something wrong with the site, post it on the official forum; I try to reply to everything I come across there within 24 hours if another mod hasn't, though occasionally it takes longer if we need to confer in private before replying. It's so easy for things to get lost on this forum among and within all the different threads and posts. And when someone comes in hot like Apu did it doesn't really create a welcoming environment for discussion and makes me I wonder, "why bother?"
Thanks, that explains it.
I hope all of us can begin looking past the (objectively existing) negativity in this thread (and maybe others which criticize a lack of mods' work) and continue working on the perfection of ICM - a goal which will be best achieved together, not against each other.
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 17th, 2023, 6:37 am
As to why we don't improve the Time Out list by piecemeal? In my opinion, it creates more room for error that way, and it ends up creating extra work, and I find it dissatisfying to have incremental fixes - I'd rather fix it all in one go, even if that means it takes a long time and it stays outdated/broken in the meantime. That's a personal preference.
Yeah, I fully get this actually. And I will say that we all do appreciate all of the list mods work, and that ICM would not be running as smoothly (or probably not at all) without it. But there is still annoying to wait years for small changes after pointing out what's wrong with the lists, knowing that award-lists gets updated instantly.
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 17th, 2023, 6:37 am
Nopros' letterboxd list is interesting, but that's about Amos Vogel which is another can of worms that I'm punting forward to deal with in the summer, since I need to refamiliarize myself with the book. That list contains every title mentioned, however, which is different from the version we have on icm which seems to (attempt to) distinguish between films merely mentioned or with only images and those with actual text written about them. But thank you for the link, as its another good resource to have on hand when I get around to working on the list.
Yeah our list is a weird little thing, there's a couple titles that's missing and also a quite a few titles only mentioned in brief that should not be there. If our lists is really only supposed to have the movies listed with their own entry, that is.
Isn't this something you can delegate to others though? I'll gladly go through the new book. I only need to know what criteria counts for movies to be on the list or not.
Edit: For what it's worth I like that the Letterboxd include almost all the movies mentioned. They are mentioned in the book for the reason that they are subversive. Although that's a whole other discussion. As long as the ICM list gets consistent in what it includes or not I'm happy.
This includes both films written about in text, as their own entries, films referenced within other texts and those written about in image captions. The only exception is a few films mentioned as counter-examples of filmic subversion (like Gone With the Wind and Love Story) which I have not included.
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 17th, 2023, 6:37 am
As to why we don't improve the Time Out list by piecemeal? In my opinion, it creates more room for error that way, and it ends up creating extra work, and I find it dissatisfying to have incremental fixes - I'd rather fix it all in one go, even if that means it takes a long time and it stays outdated/broken in the meantime. That's a personal preference.
Yeah, I fully get this actually. And I will say that we all do appreciate all of the list mods work, and that ICM would not be running as smoothly (or probably not at all) without it. But there is still annoying to wait years for small changes after pointing out what's wrong with the lists, knowing that award-lists gets updated instantly.
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 17th, 2023, 6:37 am
Nopros' letterboxd list is interesting, but that's about Amos Vogel which is another can of worms that I'm punting forward to deal with in the summer, since I need to refamiliarize myself with the book. That list contains every title mentioned, however, which is different from the version we have on icm which seems to (attempt to) distinguish between films merely mentioned or with only images and those with actual text written about them. But thank you for the link, as its another good resource to have on hand when I get around to working on the list.
Yeah our list is a weird little thing, there's a couple titles that's missing and also a quite a few titles only mentioned in brief that should not be there. If our lists is really only supposed to have the movies listed with their own entry, that is.
Isn't this something you can delegate to others though? I'll gladly go through the new book. I only need to know what criteria counts for movies to be on the list or not.
Edit: For what it's worth I like that the Letterboxd include almost all the movies mentioned. They are mentioned in the book for the reason that they are subversive. Although that's a whole other discussion. As long as the ICM list gets consistent in what it includes or not I'm happy.
This includes both films written about in text, as their own entries, films referenced within other texts and those written about in image captions. The only exception is a few films mentioned as counter-examples of filmic subversion (like Gone With the Wind and Love Story) which I have not included.
I'm not aware of any small list changes that have been waiting for years, as you say, only big ones like the Vogel list. Am I forgetting something?
I did pass off the Vogel list before, but that person didn't get around to it, so it's come back to me and I'll just power through it when I get the chance. Even if a non-mod did all the legwork, I'd still have to verify their work and consult with the other mods on edge cases, so it's not likely it would move any faster, especially if there's misalignment between what the one person thinks should or should not be included and what the mods think. As for what criteria to work with, from what I remember it wasn't always clear whether a movie mentioned was as an entry or a reference or just a captioned image. The updated version I believe is more reliable, but I haven't looked at it in a couple years (I have a digital copy from somewhere) so I cannot say with certainty.
While I appreciate the offer of help on the grunt work of this list, it's one of those case where I think it's best if one person digs deep and looks at everything, and then presents the work for others to review and give feedback on, instead of multiple people working on the first stage and passing it off to one person for final review.
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 18th, 2023, 12:08 amWhile I appreciate the offer of help on the grunt work of this list, it's one of those case where I think it's best if one person digs deep and looks at everything, and then presents the work for others to review and give feedback on, instead of multiple people working on the first stage and passing it off to one person for final review.
If no mod feels they have time to attack either the Vogel or TimeOut Change lists, why not rely on a interested volunteer? Just provide such volunteers with a framework. A statement, with examples, of what the mods would consider list-worthy treatment of a title reference in a work would be useful. Also, a statement regarding the preference of text vs index, again with an example or two.
So, as way of example: if the text reads "Of the Qatsi Trilogy, only Koyaanisqatsi changed my life. Powaqqatsi and Naqoyqatsi had no effect." To me, only Koyaanisqatsi should be included in the list.
It would also be useful for a volunteer to provide a list of questionable references with the text (and index) cited for the team of mods to review.
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 18th, 2023, 12:08 am
I'm not aware of any small list changes that have been waiting for years, as you say, only big ones like the Vogel list. Am I forgetting something?
I did pass off the Vogel list before, but that person didn't get around to it, so it's come back to me and I'll just power through it when I get the chance. Even if a non-mod did all the legwork, I'd still have to verify their work and consult with the other mods on edge cases, so it's not likely it would move any faster, especially if there's misalignment between what the one person thinks should or should not be included and what the mods think. As for what criteria to work with, from what I remember it wasn't always clear whether a movie mentioned was as an entry or a reference or just a captioned image. The updated version I believe is more reliable, but I haven't looked at it in a couple years (I have a digital copy from somewhere) so I cannot say with certainty.
Small changes, as in posts that has said that this and that movie should not be on the list, and then nothing happens. Tried to find some of my older posts, but search function is not all that great on this forum. Then again, I really do understand wanting to do it all in one go. We were definitely not as precise when making this list back in the days And it's come back to bite us.
There can definitely be edge cases. The more I look into it, the more sure I am that we should include more than just the actual entries themselves. Like the three Polanski-shorts currently on our list, which is mentioned under Two men and a wardrobe. Mentioned because they, along with Wardrobe are his most subversive films.
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 18th, 2023, 12:08 am
While I appreciate the offer of help on the grunt work of this list, it's one of those case where I think it's best if one person digs deep and looks at everything, and then presents the work for others to review and give feedback on, instead of multiple people working on the first stage and passing it off to one person for final review.
I can do this. completely fine if mods want to do it themselves though.
Another thought, a small team (2-3 people) working through one of these big projects can also provide and opportunity for them to discuss questionable mentions.
Thanks Nopros! That's a great example. If he mods agree that the shorts SHOULD be included, then a volunteer, like you, would know how to tackle the project.
xianjiro wrote: ↑May 18th, 2023, 12:37 am
Can you find a much more iffy example?
Yeah, and I'm sad to say this new revised version still has some errors hanging on from the old book. Mostly in the index as far as I can tell.
I think this is an ok example. Der Letze Mann and Variety has their own entry, so that's fair, we include them. The Second in Command is included in both ICM and LB lists, but is not just as clear. According to one older version of the book it doesn't even seem like Amos himself has seen the film. Also, note the errors in both the name of the movie AND the director
That's a fine example! Thanks Nopros. It would be useful if the mods would review and suggest what they would do as a guide for a volunteer, should they be willing to let someone, like you, work on this project. If they prefer to keep it "in house the team", that's fine too. I'm just looking for ways for volunteers to help, especially since we do have volunteers willing to do this type of work.
(I appreciate all the other hard work the mods do for the site! Thanks mods! )
Two suggestions:
At a minimum, I'd suggest individual "project" threads for each list being reviewed. The mods should state if they prefer it on the official forum (which I think they do). We either move all discussion over there, or if they approve, do we do it in both places? I know this forum is busier than the official forum. I'd prefer a single location though. It would also keep it simpler.
The other thing I've been thinking about, instead of this discussion in whatever thread, seems like a "bug reporting system" would be useful. Ideally where questions are reported (bug reported), people can discuss, mods can review and vote, and then when the decision is made to change (or not) the list, the bug report can be closed. I get that we might not be able to do something like that or might not want to, but if any of programmer kinophiles have suggestions in that regard, I'd certainly be interested.
Another option might be to create a "List Updates" sub on the official forum and then add a thread for an individual list so things don't get tangled up. We do have the option of 'hearting' comments on the official forum, so that would aid in collecting 'votes' though people would still have to say if they don't approve of the suggested edit.
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 18th, 2023, 12:08 amWhile I appreciate the offer of help on the grunt work of this list, it's one of those case where I think it's best if one person digs deep and looks at everything, and then presents the work for others to review and give feedback on, instead of multiple people working on the first stage and passing it off to one person for final review.
If no mod feels they have time to attack either the Vogel or TimeOut Change lists, why not rely on a interested volunteer? Just provide such volunteers with a framework. A statement, with examples, of what the mods would consider list-worthy treatment of a title reference in a work would be useful. Also, a statement regarding the preference of text vs index, again with an example or two.
So, as way of example: if the text reads "Of the Qatsi Trilogy, only Koyaanisqatsi changed my life. Powaqqatsi and Naqoyqatsi had no effect." To me, only Koyaanisqatsi should be included in the list.
It would also be useful for a volunteer to provide a list of questionable references with the text (and index) cited for the team of mods to review.
The biggest issue to me is that the Vogel list is so... haphazard? in its compilation that I don't feel able to give someone a framework to begin with. When I was going through it last time, it was only by reading it and going bit by bit did I start to understand how it was structured, and I went back many times to rewrite my notes about specific entries based on my evolving understanding of the book. I feel like it would be unfair to lay out a framework for someone else and then constantly change that base while they're working, or worse, rewrite the framework after they've done all the hard work. I'm much more permissive with wasting my own time than in wasting others, if that makes sense.
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 18th, 2023, 12:08 am
I'm not aware of any small list changes that have been waiting for years, as you say, only big ones like the Vogel list. Am I forgetting something?
I did pass off the Vogel list before, but that person didn't get around to it, so it's come back to me and I'll just power through it when I get the chance. Even if a non-mod did all the legwork, I'd still have to verify their work and consult with the other mods on edge cases, so it's not likely it would move any faster, especially if there's misalignment between what the one person thinks should or should not be included and what the mods think. As for what criteria to work with, from what I remember it wasn't always clear whether a movie mentioned was as an entry or a reference or just a captioned image. The updated version I believe is more reliable, but I haven't looked at it in a couple years (I have a digital copy from somewhere) so I cannot say with certainty.
Small changes, as in posts that has said that this and that movie should not be on the list, and then nothing happens. Tried to find some of my older posts, but search function is not all that great on this forum. Then again, I really do understand wanting to do it all in one go. We were definitely not as precise when making this list back in the days And it's come back to bite us.
There can definitely be edge cases. The more I look into it, the more sure I am that we should include more than just the actual entries themselves. Like the three Polanski-shorts currently on our list, which is mentioned under Two men and a wardrobe. Mentioned because they, along with Wardrobe are his most subversive films.
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 18th, 2023, 12:08 am
While I appreciate the offer of help on the grunt work of this list, it's one of those case where I think it's best if one person digs deep and looks at everything, and then presents the work for others to review and give feedback on, instead of multiple people working on the first stage and passing it off to one person for final review.
I can do this. completely fine if mods want to do it themselves though.
So the small changes you're referring to were about the Vogel list itself? Or something else?
Right now my mod-work is focused on getting the next adoption round out. I'd like to put your offer on hold until the end of the month when I can have a better opportunity to look ahead at my own workload mod-wise and life-wise.
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 18th, 2023, 3:21 am
I feel like it would be unfair to lay out a framework for someone else and then constantly change that base while they're working, or worse, rewrite the framework after they've done all the hard work. I'm much more permissive with wasting my own time than in wasting others, if that makes sense.
Fergenaprido wrote: ↑May 18th, 2023, 12:08 am
Right now my mod-work is focused on getting the next adoption round out. I'd like to put your offer on hold until the end of the month when I can have a better opportunity to look ahead at my own workload mod-wise and life-wise.
Fair enough on both these fronts. But maybe some sort of back and forth might be able to work?
I'd suggest that since Nopros is motivated when it comes to Vogel, 1) maybe Nopros could compile the prior suggestions, wherever they might have been written about in this (and the official) forum, in a single document to share with you, Ferg, say two weeks after the new adoption announcement is blogged (if you haven't made contact first); 2) maybe Nopros will have some good 'defining' examples of marginal mentions that the mods need to discuss (like the one shared above). A short paragraph explaining/defining the concern would be helpful. Then you'd have someone else's thoughts to refer to when you were contemplating a given (series of) reference(s).
3) My idea of framework is more general: include titles where the author clearly discusses a film, most likely in detail. Do not include films used to negate (eg: yes Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and Raiders of the Lost Ark have changed lives; but not the rest of Spielberg's work). Exclude titles listed in the index that aren't actually discussed in the text. Things like that.
Does that help any? And it's not like a decision has to be made tonight. Folks can think about my suggestions and see what works best.
(BTW, the TimeOut Change book's status is 'ready' for pickup tomorrow. )
I believe I've seen a PDF of Vogel's work though I'm not sure which version nor do I have any idea which version the mods wish to follow, but I can check and get back to you.
I was not able to come up with an alternative, even temporarily, for the TimeOut Change book, thus why I ordered a copy through my library. Can't help you there.
I aquired a pdf of the new version of the book right after it came out. Can share again if people want, just PM me. That’s for sure the one we should use, even though that too has a couple of errors.
Nopros wrote: ↑May 18th, 2023, 1:33 pm
I aquired a pdf of the new version of the book right after it came out. Can share again if people want, just PM me. That’s for sure the one we should use, even though that too has a couple of errors.
Apu wrote: ↑May 4th, 2023, 8:36 pm
Fair enough, xian. I understand you'd like to see the book and when you do, you'll see that this issue really is a no brainer (you're welcome to compare it with the version I created). I then beg you to come up with one (only one) good argument as to why, say The Birth of a Nation (1973) should not be in the icm list after you've seen it mentioned in the book (it is much more eligible than Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde among others). Also, we want to be true to the list source, and the foreword mentions 1158 movies (and please, with that I don't mean that the list must consist of 1158 movies and/or entries but as many as there actually are in the book - should be about 1162 according to my list). The current list consists of only 1033 entries. This is another ignorant attribute with the current list.
Okay, I have the TimeOut book and, well ... IDK
I decided to start with this quote since it seems as good as any place to start. I've no argument against including The Birth of a Nation (1973) now that I see it is clearly listed on page 182. I see the clear problem with the index in this instance since the movie listed in the index, and mentioned on the other two pages cited, is the 1915 Griffith movie. So yes, I'd say both should probably be included in the official list.
This illustrates the problem (with lists derived from books): it's pretty much a mess as you've already outlined. flavo5000 is the mod currently working through the book. I've offered help and that hasn't been acknowledged. So I'm not sure what I can do going forward. And honestly, this 'project' would be quite a challenge for me given the tiny text in the book. I can read it, but since I generally make notes on a computer, I'd have to change glasses every time I switched media.
flavo has talked about 'intent' and I'm not sure that's entirely clear editorily regarding mentions in the text. I guess working towards TimeOut's (possibly mythical/mystical) 1158 titles makes the most sense and trying that on my own, without guidance from a group of mods that will likely have differing viewpoints, it seems like a fairly pointless project to me. After all, you've put in all the leg work and I suspect you know the text as well as anyone with regards to BaalMan and flavo5000.
And back to the Little Women examples ... I too lean towards including the three films referenced in the text. Sorry that I didn't see that earlier, but again, it's going to depend on what criteria the mod(s) decide to use. Your number, if I remember correctly, of 1178 titles includes everything mentioned anywhere in the book. Correct? Forgive me if you've explained this elsewhere, but do you have any guess what the discrepancy of 20 titles is? Lord of the Rings and Matrix trilogies? Cremaster cycle? Others? If so, then that difference is easy to explain and we've seen it elsewhere in these sort of lists.
So, other than these general thoughts and questions, I guess it's best to leave the project in flavo's hands and wait to for a result. I really appreciate the work those mentioned in this post (and Ferg too? though I'm not sure if he handed off something to flavo or what). This is a really big project and I'm certainly willing to be patient and supportive.
Just to mention about the pre-code list - I went through the source book, and only listed movies that were explicitly discussed as opposed to only mentioned in the index. It's a perfect source list. Can't wait for its adoption, but so I don't disappoint this thread, maybe I'll add just one movie from the index.
xianjiro wrote: ↑May 21st, 2023, 2:23 am
Your number, if I remember correctly, of 1178 titles includes everything mentioned anywhere in the book. Correct? Forgive me if you've explained this elsewhere, but do you have any guess what the discrepancy of 20 titles is? Lord of the Rings and Matrix trilogies? Cremaster cycle? Others? If so, then that difference is easy to explain and we've seen it elsewhere in these sort of lists.
My list includes everything mentioned everywhere in the book. In the list description, it is basically stated such. Films ranked #1163-1178 should not really be included in my opinion (well, maybe Get Carter), nor should My Girl 2 (ranked #707). That would make ~1163 or so titles mentioned (including two films not on imdb). But as flavo and others pointed out, the book is a mess and he brings up good arguments with the intent of the list (and why not to include films like Thirteen). As long as you're consistent, it should all be OK.
The reason why the foreword mentions 1158 titles? Well, given how extremely poor the editing is in the book my guess is that they simply miscalculated/forgot about a few titles. I don't understand why editing is such a problem (even the newly revised Subversive Art-book leaves a few glaring editorial errors) - and not too long ago the extremely clumsy and aesthetically displeasing Swedish magazine FLM and their incompetent editor(s) also miscalculated when they prestented their ballots of the best Swedish films of all time which is extremely embarrassing to acknowledge.
Anyway, great discussion in here - both by mods and dedicated users, keep it up
The article explicitly mentions: "Forced to look back at themselves at 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35, they seem mostly content with the way things have turned out. Will they all live to 49?" We can therefore infer that the series was added to his list of Great Movies prior to the release of 49 Up and he does explicitly discuss 42 Up. Yet in my time on this board, I only remember heated argument about the inclusion of 63 Up and will paraphrase those arguing against its inclusion as positing "since it was released after Ebert's death, he couldn't have possibly intended to include it on this list."
This is an excellent example of what I'd call a difficult decision on inclusion. Even when Ebert was still alive, I'm not sure if he ever wrote anywhere that 56 Up should be considered a "great movie" or not. 49 Up was only mentioned in the above quotation. The link hints that the review was written in 1985.
But in my reading, here's the part that buttresses my conclusion that any and all films released in the series should be included on the official list:
The "Up" documentaries, they're called. Every seven years, the British director Michael Apted revisits a group of people whose lives he has been chronicling since they were children. As he chats with them about how things are going, his films penetrate to the central mystery of life, asking the same questions that Wim Wenders poses in "Wings of Desire": Why am I me and why not you? Why am I here and why not there?
Now an interesting aside -- that first use of the word Up links to a non-great-movie review of PIxar's Up. Certainly no one would argue that this somehow means that Pixar's Up should be included in Ebert's Great Movies list (I hope). (BTW, I used their contact form to ask if this is possibly an error.)
So, as I read it, we either include anything and everything released in the series OR only those films explicitly mentioned in the above link. Based on the text, I don't accept the argument: everything but the most recent. If a 70 Up is released, this will be a tougher call since Apted has joined Ebert in the Great Kinoplex In the Sky. These decisions rest with the mods. Not everyone will agree with the decision made. And even if mods in decades to come change their collective mind, it doesn't mean that they have abrogated their duty to present Ebert's work faithfully.
I know that this is not the main thrust of this thread, but I would like to weigh in here. I did a fair amount of research on this question back when 63 Up was added to Ebert's Great Movies list, to see what Ebert actually said about future installments and whether he gave any indication of how he would approach those future, unmade films. While his Great Movies entry was not updated after it was written, I did find this published interview from 2006 with Michael Apted on Ebert's website with details that I believe conclusively demonstrate that Ebert thought of the whole series, including future, unreleased installments, as belonging to his Great Movies list. Here is the link, and some excerpts:
Excerpt 1 wrote:In 1964, director Michael Apted interviewed a group of seven-year-old British schoolchildren for a BBC television documentary called "7 Up." Apted, now known for directing such features as "Coal Miner's Daughter" and "Gorillas in the Mist," has since returned to film these subjects every seven years. They are now 49. Roger Ebert, who lists the "Up" series among his ten greatest films of all time, interviewed Apted in London for the release of the latest installment, "49 Up," which will be seen in American theaters beginning in October.
Excerpt 2 wrote:Ebert: And now here you are. This was a project that would consume all the rest of your life and it still isn’t finished.
Excerpt 3 wrote:Ebert: That’s the remarkable thing, to me, about the film because, and you can call it the film, or the films, because in a way it’s one work, and in another way it’s a work that’s still being finished. Some people come into it now and see it all at once. But for you making it and for me watching it, I’ve grown up seven years between each film just as the characters have and it’s become part of my life because as they grow older and they go through these things, so do I. And so do you.
Excerpt 4 wrote:Ebert: I’ve often thought that if we had any piece of film at all from the year 1000 or the year 500 it would be fascinating to see. Or those first films in Paris of the people coming out of the Metro, when they were inventing the cinema. We would just look at those people and think, “Well now I’m looking at someone who was alive in 1898.” This project, as it continues and finally concludes and becomes a piece of film, 56 Up, 63 Up, 70 Up, then 100 years from now, 200 years from now, how fascinating this would be, what a film to show in a classroom 200 years from now.
Exactly 10 years ago today, Otto Muehl passed away.
You may ask: what's the best way of celebrating the 10th year anniversary of his death? Turn more of his films into official checks? Well, how about removing one of his films from its official check status.
Earlier I brought up how one of Muehl's shorts was missing from the Amos Vogel-list (Scheiss-Kerl) and it became an official check shortly after. This time, however, I propose to remove one of the shorts from the Amos Vogel-list: Der geile Wotan (1971).
Now, however, with the revised version, this title has been removed from the book.
This is how the original version from 1974 treats Der geile Wotan: Spoiler
Both featured in the book (page 254 - only accompanied along this still) and also listed at the index.
There has always been a problem with this entry, however (and the revised version stress this problem with the erroneous entry even more). The still from the film has got nothing to do with the actual short which can be viewed here.
If you watch the short, you'll see none of the Nazi SS imagery or any victimized jewess as depicted in the still from the book.
And here is what it says in the REVISED VERSION of the book: Spoiler
Notice that the film is no longer refered to as The Lascivious Wotan
Stupidly enough, the index in the revised version very incorrectly persists in listing the film : Spoiler
Der geile Wotan should therefore be removed as an official check.
Apu wrote: ↑May 26th, 2023, 1:03 pm
Exactly 10 years ago today, Otto Muehl passed away.
You may ask: what's the best way of celebrating the 10th year anniversary of his death? Turn more of his films into official checks? Well, how about removing one of his films from its official check status.
Earlier I brought up how one of Muehl's shorts was missing from the Amos Vogel-list (Scheiss-Kerl) and it became an official check shortly after. This time, however, I propose to remove one of the shorts from the Amos Vogel-list: Der geile Wotan (1971).
Now, however, with the revised version, this title has been removed from the book.
This is how the original version from 1974 treats Der geile Wotan: Spoiler
Both featured in the book (page 254 - only accompanied along this still) and also listed at the index.
There has always been a problem with this entry, however (and the revised version stress this problem with the erroneous entry even more). The still from the film has got nothing to do with the actual short which can be viewed here.
If you watch the short, you'll see none of the Nazi SS imagery or any victimized jewess as depicted in the still from the book.
And here is what it says in the REVISED VERSION of the book: Spoiler
Notice that the film is no longer refered to as The Lascivious Wotan
Stupidly enough, the index in the revised version very incorrectly persists in listing the film : Spoiler
Der geile Wotan should therefore be removed as an official check.
Last edited by Knaldskalle on May 29th, 2023, 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Edited to satisfy minimum posting requirement, after complaint from user.
+1 -- and let me know if I can be of an help
Looking forward to checking it out for myself.
And it's come back to bite us.
which is extremely embarrassing to acknowledge.
