The Lists Project
- Rayon Vert
- Green is the Rayest Color
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: The 1960s List: Discussion and Suggestions
1960 has to be one of the all-time best years.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: The 1960s List: Discussion and Suggestions
Although a bit of a logistical nightmare given how many films often jump years on IMDb. What if I just like opened up Round 2 to be (optionally) up to a top 100?
- senseabove
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:07 am
Re: The 1960s List: Discussion and Suggestions
Doesn't really accomplish the same thing—for me, at least. The point and pleasure of list participation is forcing a narrower focus that leads to deeper dives and more chance encounters, so an even narrower focus is an interesting idea. I've watched as many 60s movies just this month as I have in the prior six, ranging from Bona Fide Classics I've been putting off for years, to free-shipping padding that's been lingering in my keyvip, to "I don't know why this is in my watchlist but why not."
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: The 1960s List: Discussion and Suggestions
Honestly, if we were going to switch to a top 100 I think it would need to be for all decades, not just the 60s. I was surprised to find that I had roughly the same difficulty narrowing down this list as I did the 50s, and a preliminary look at my 70s list is arguably even more brutal without the surplus of new films in my kevyip on deck..So I guess what I'm saying is, I was expecting the 60s to be by-far the most challenging decade and, as senseabove notes, the process of whittling down is tough -yet rewarding- in general.
- Pavel
- Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 2:41 pm
Re: The 1960s List: Discussion and Suggestions
Would that mean that your number 1 film gets a 100 points? If so, very tempting to boost up some of my faves that way but I'm also against it. I think that part of the purpose of the list is to force participants to really pick the best of the best in their mind. And also I don't really want to think through where to place 50 more films (Will submit my list tomorrow)
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: The 1960s List: Discussion and Suggestions
No, it would be like the genre/auteur lists where every #1 vote counts the same. The main appeal for me would be that it would suddenly free up all this space for orphan rescues. But it would be a lot of extra work for me and I would only do something like this if there were enough people behind it
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: The 1960s List: Discussion and Suggestions
1960 would be the perfect year to try something like this too precisely because of how many classics came out at once. My suggestion was half joking, but I’d absolutely participate (and I think 1960 would be a good test balloon— if we can’t get full lists from that year, it prob can’t be done anytime else either). If we just bumped the 60s up to an optional 100, I’d like a few extra months though
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: The 1960s List: Discussion and Suggestions
The orphan rescue point is intriguing- though following the mass advocacy to slow down mini-lists and have more space between them, etc., I get the impression that we would need to give even more time for orphan rescue rounds to ensure people had the time to see the films being championed to potentially rescue them. If we wanted to do that, I'd be down, but again would prefer to extend such a parameter to all decades lists rather than just one (or, test drive it here, with the ultimate goal of its success being to fairly attribute the rule to other lists as well). Maybe something to discuss/poll in the list projects thread?
- Pavel
- Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 2:41 pm
Re: The 1960s List: Discussion and Suggestions
If the voting is extended to include up to a 100 films, that means that you can vote for any number between 50 and 100, right? I might not be able to make a top 100, but would be fine with some extra room to vote for, like, 60 films or something. But I also kind of like being forced to make a top 50, so I might just stick to that number in any case.
The single-year lists idea sounds great.
The single-year lists idea sounds great.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: The Lists Project
If this idea had come up sooner, ideally the nine months of the project would be split up more like six months for Round 1 and three for Round 2. I'd be open to extending Round 2 for this 1960s list by two months to accomplish this, and to serve as a trial run for future decades. Maybe we do a poll to see if people would prefer this or the 1960 mini-list option
- Toland's Mitchell
- Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:42 pm
Re: The Lists Project
I also agree in spirit.
My two cents on the proposals -
Expanding our lists to 100 would naturally change the point system, correct? Suddenly #1s are 100 instead of 50 (if not, how would it work?). It seems that would oblige participants to their lists expand to 100, whether they want to or not. Keeping it at 50 avoids that decision, stays in line with how previous decade lists have run, and forces us to be selective about what makes our list or not. I endorse keeping it at 50 for now, but if the majority wants to expand to 100, I will go along with it. Perhaps expanding to 100 is a potential idea for the next round of decade lists several years from now.
I like single year mini-lists. 1960 and 1962 would be great.
- Rayon Vert
- Green is the Rayest Color
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: The Lists Project
Same preference here for single year mini-lists and 50 films per decade list. Probably doing a poll is a good idea.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: The Lists Project
A 1960 mini list could potentially overlap with the orphan round for the 60s list too— could expand the orphan round by a couple months, even if we don’t extend ballots to 100, and have it run alongside the 1960 year list (would we do 25 films on a ballot for 50 total, or 50/100 like the decade ballot?)
- Rayon Vert
- Green is the Rayest Color
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: The Lists Project
I like this idea, although viewing all those extra 1960 films will potentially unfairly favor that year for the decades list! (not that that bothers me)domino harvey wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 5:58 pmA 1960 mini list could potentially overlap with the orphan round for the 60s list too— could expand the orphan round by a couple months, even if we don’t extend ballots to 100, and have it run alongside the 1960 year list
- Pavel
- Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 2:41 pm
Re: The Lists Project
I don't think I'll be able to find 50 films from 1960 that I'd consider great enough to vote for (and that's accounting for the films I'll watch specifically for the list). 25 seems like a more reasonable number for a single year imodomino harvey wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 5:58 pmA 1960 mini list could potentially overlap with the orphan round for the 60s list too— could expand the orphan round by a couple months, even if we don’t extend ballots to 100, and have it run alongside the 1960 year list (would we do 25 films on a ballot for 50 total, or 50/100 like the decade ballot?)
- Rayon Vert
- Green is the Rayest Color
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: The Lists Project
25 is in my ballpark too
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: The Lists Project
I only count five 1960 films on my own list (though they are all in my top 12) so it'd be a nice excuse to delve deeper and give credit to the many I had to cut. I doubt I'll be swapping any in, but to RV's point about the influence on the decade list, this feels like lethal poison for swo's firm dedication to not "gaming" results!
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: The Lists Project
Perhaps in the future decade projects could take the form of spending one month per decade year (10 mini lists submitted and tallied) and then a final month of discussion for overall ballots to be submitted (so 11 months total per decade)? Talk about increasing swo’s workload!
- DarkImbecile
- Ask me about my visible cat breasts
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Re: The Lists Project
Make the final full-decade submission period two months to bring covering each decade to an even year, and give swo a well-deserved month off from tallying!domino harvey wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:10 pmPerhaps in the future decade projects could take the form of spending one month per decade year (10 mini lists submitted and tallied) and then a final month of discussion for overall ballots to be submitted (so 11 months total per decade)? Talk about increasing swo’s workload!
I would definitely do this for the ‘70s, which I think is the richest decade of all.
- Toland's Mitchell
- Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:42 pm
Re: The Lists Project
I had a similar idea but didn't mention it. It's a very straightforward approach. Would it distract from genre/auteur side projects?domino harvey wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:10 pmPerhaps in the future decade projects could take the form of spending one month per decade year (10 mini lists submitted and tallied) and then a final month of discussion for overall ballots to be submitted (so 11 months total per decade)? Talk about increasing swo’s workload!
And I agree 50 is too many for a year. 20 or 25 seems more reasonable. And to TWWB's point, not sure how I'd feel about a single year mini-list running during Round 2...gaming the results sounds like a real, if unintended, possibility. If we were to do single year mini lists, I think it would be better to wait until after the decade list ends, or take domino's approach and have all ten single-year lists concurrent with the decade list. Of course, it's too late for that now, but it's an idea for the next round of decade lists in a few years (or heck, even beginning with the 70s list, but I would understand if swo doesn't want that workload).
Last edited by Toland's Mitchell on Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Rayon Vert
- Green is the Rayest Color
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: The Lists Project
Yes, like a bonus, and the chance to try the idea out.Toland's Mitchell wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:28 pm(or heck, even beginning with the 70s list, but I would understand if swo doesn't want that workload).
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: The Lists Project
Yeah that's a good point- I still might be inclined to check out more 1960 films championed in the orphan rescue round comparatively to other years, if only to save time later, but I doubt that'd game it too much and would serve as a more personal extra step in checking dates of recs, if I even do that at all
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: The Lists Project
Something to bear in mind: Checking the Dynamic Top 10 threads, something like 40% of films have been assigned to more than one year there, depending on the person. (Or consider for example how many of our Top Films of 2020 are 2019 per IMDb.) I keep an extensive reminder list in the first post of each decades project for films that might commonly be assigned to one decade or another depending on the source. This issue is already complicated enough as it is, without having to worry about whether Film X is really 1963 vs. 1964 or whatever. And it's one thing to make a reminder or an official ruling, but another thing entirely for someone to actually remember that rule when compiling their list. I could foresee a lot of people forgetting to list one film or another for a given year because that wasn't how Letterboxd had it, while someone else using IMDb as a reference would have that issue with something else.
These things are simplest when there's a fixed list of eligible films to work from, like you have for any auteur list, or for the all-time list after we finish all the decades. To that end, here's another idea: What if, concurrent with a 3-month orphan rescue round, we did a mini-list where the only eligible titles are Round 1 orphans? That way everyone's orphans get a lot more exposure, and even if many of them fail to clear the high bar of making someone's revised top 50 for the decade, there would still be the consolation prize of having them place in the mini-list. All discussion could simply take place in the thread for that decade, and I could tabulate the results for both lists. Thoughts?
These things are simplest when there's a fixed list of eligible films to work from, like you have for any auteur list, or for the all-time list after we finish all the decades. To that end, here's another idea: What if, concurrent with a 3-month orphan rescue round, we did a mini-list where the only eligible titles are Round 1 orphans? That way everyone's orphans get a lot more exposure, and even if many of them fail to clear the high bar of making someone's revised top 50 for the decade, there would still be the consolation prize of having them place in the mini-list. All discussion could simply take place in the thread for that decade, and I could tabulate the results for both lists. Thoughts?
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: The Lists Project
I don’t think I’d participate in that, to be honest
- senseabove
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:07 am
Re: The Lists Project
I like the sound of an least slightly extended orphan rescue round just because I spend so much time catching up on classics for decades lists, it would be nice to have ample time for people's more oddball selections.
I'll throw this out for the year-focus idea: start the long 1970s list term with a one or two-month 10-film mini-list for the year with the least films from the last 70s list. A smaller list should avoid the pitfall of overweighting one year in the long run, it wouldn't be a huge burden to fill for those of us who haven't seen more Cahiers critic movies than most people have movies period, and choosing the least-popular year would presumably increase the likelihood of people finding their own unsung and idiosyncratic favorites to boost over the remainder of the list (which is, of course, the other enjoyable feature of these longer lists).
I'll throw this out for the year-focus idea: start the long 1970s list term with a one or two-month 10-film mini-list for the year with the least films from the last 70s list. A smaller list should avoid the pitfall of overweighting one year in the long run, it wouldn't be a huge burden to fill for those of us who haven't seen more Cahiers critic movies than most people have movies period, and choosing the least-popular year would presumably increase the likelihood of people finding their own unsung and idiosyncratic favorites to boost over the remainder of the list (which is, of course, the other enjoyable feature of these longer lists).