During the voting stage, we want people to know what they are voting for, not just some random list covering a certain scope. We think it’s important what the source of the list is. If there is no source mentioned at all, we won’t adopt it. With source, I don’t mean who put the list on iCM. The source is the origin of the list. Is it from a book? Is it from a web-poll? Is it from a film festival? Etc…
The ‘list order’ is what the order of the list means. For example IMDb’s Top 250 is a ranked list. The best is on top and it goes down from that. Other lists are chronologically or alphabetically listed, like 1001 movies you must see before you die. There’s no ranking in the sense that one is presented as a better movie than the other.
All this info is important for the voters. Some people prefer ranked lists over unranked lists. Some people prefer polls among a lot of critics over a list made by one critic. Etc… The list itself and the movies on it are not the only important thing.
So if you post your nomination, please write a few words about where the list comes from. No need to include stuff like who put the list on iCM, how many people watchlisted it etc… Look at the example in the OP and I hope you get the idea what I mean. I’ll quote a good example of someone else in a moment to make it clearer…
This is a good example of how to post. With just a few words it is clear to me what kind of list this is. I can see it is not ranked, but a chronological list of significant movies (kinda like 1001MYMSBYD). It states the source, a book in this case, who made the list and it even tells me the period that is included.
I have no idea what this list is. There is no description and no source-link. It only tells me the scope of the list (pre-code), but not where this list comes from. This way the list is ineligible.
It lists all films since Ben Hur (1959) that topped the US Box Office list. Imho a film that has been top grossing for a week in the USA (one of the more important countries in movie business) deserves it to be an official check.
The list has 1567 films now, but it seems not quite up to date. I guess about 500 films in this list aren’t official checks yet.
This list was submitted on iCM by MrKitchen. I don’t know his source, but it shouldn’t be that hard to find.
Ok, I added it (and I’m counting it as auto-nominated).
The list order can be ranked, alphabetical, chronological, etc.
I meant who originally created the list, not who created the iCM list.
I added your first 2 nominations but not the third. Usually we don’t adopt lists of DVD releases (Criterion is an exception because it’s so famous).
Is the pre-code list from Wikipedia? If so, it’s not adoptable.
@ Limbesdautomne, sol, rnilsson19, ChrisReynolds: I added your nominations.
I don’t think TSPDT (all editions) is adoptable. I’m not sure what “In Competition” means. How do they select the films? Do they vote?
I didn’t add this one because it’s a list of DVD releases, but I added your other nominations.
I’ll just point out that the second list is not yet complete (my bad, I’ll fix it soon, promise!) and then I’ll also point out that those two lists include a bunch of titles that are considered bad by the author, so it’s a “lock, stock and barrel” kind of list. As an introduction to gialli, this probably wouldn’t be a good list to follow, this is more for the completionist who’ll watch anything that smacks a little of giallo. I recommend the books, by the way, they’re well done.
There are still films to be seen and decisions to be taken, some will be delicate: establishing a selection is not an exact science.
I’m often asked how we make our choices. Well, in the same way as any other type of amateur: on the basis of feeling, intuition, passion…and occasionally opinion. We’re accused of a thousand misdoings, undeclared friendships and secret pacts.
But, we have one single objective, to make the best selection possible. On this last day, there’s no place for anything else. The clock is turning, our brains are in tatters. Films which once seemed an obvious choice no longer do today and such and such a film which left us indifferent has come back with force.
The book might have more info on the process, but I assume there are no formulas or fancy point-based rankings, just good old discussion and handpicking.
If we have adopted the list of Academy Awards nominees, the Cannes selection deserves at least to be nominated. Getting into the main “In Competition” short-list is highly valued in the art-house world, and all films get a ton of attention and discussion in press. And I think it did really well in several past polls.
Would it be possible to add an extra column in the Google doc that states the number of films in each list which are currently unofficial? While I recognise that turning films official should not be our primary motive for selecting a list, I often find it hard to be enthusiastic with lists full of the same old films that we have seen promoted in other lists time and time again.
If I were to nominate some iCM forum lists, is likely that they will be rejected or receive insufficient support to be adopted? We have conducted some great polls on the forum and while we are not professional films critics, we are members of a sizeable, recognised online film community. The list that I am thinking of in particular is the recent Oceania poll since Oceania countries (other than Australia) have no other representation on iCM other than in the UNESCO list.
If we have adopted the list of Academy Awards nominees, the Cannes selection deserves at least to be nominated. Getting into the main “In Competition” short-list is highly valued in the art-house world, and all films get a ton of attention and discussion in press. And I think it did really well in several past polls.
Seconded. And there was quite a bit of interest for “In Competition at Cannes” on the iCM forum when we were determining 2018 movie challenges. The topic only missed out on making the cut for an official challenge by one or two votes.
No, Criterion is just the exception. Generally we don’t support lists of movies released by insert company. Criterion is famous indeed and a lot of people consider it to be a brand of quality. It’s not like that’s the reason it is an exception. The list has been on iCM for many years. It has been adopted by Erik, when he alone decided those things without the advice of moderators. I wouldn’t say it wouldn’t have been adopted if we were around back then, but I do say Criterion shouldn’t be a precedence for other company lists to be allowed.
“In competition” means “in the official competition at the Cannes festival”, it excludes other selected films from other official sections such as special screenings, “Un certain regard” selection, and excludes films from the “off” festival, such as “La Semaine de la critique” selection, or “La Quinzaine des réalisateurs” section.
About how it’s selected, since 1972 the “comité de sélection” selects about 20 films each year to run for the Palme d’or and other official prizes.