IMDB - a rant

[wpqx]

Is everyone retarded on that site, or just plain ignorant? Now maybe I have an elitist attitude towards my knowledge of film, but I "sometimes" know when to keep my mouth shut. Let's clarify a few things, and hopefully someone on this site will back me up.

1. The Shawshank Redemption is NOT the greatest film of all time, nor is it top 5, or top 10, or in my opinion top 100.

2. Fight Club is NOT the most extraordinary film of all time. I loved this movie and saw it probably half a dozen times, but there certainly are better films than this.

3. There is more to foreign films than Kurosawa and to a lesser extent Fellini. I'm honestly surprised that Seven Samurai made their top ten, but come on? First off Seven Samurai isn't the best thing that international film has to offer. Now I could be in the minority but I don't even think it is Kurosawa's best (I'd vote for Ran, but that's a moot point). Does anyone there even know who Andrei Tarkovsky is? In all those best/worst lists not a single person mentioned Jean-Luc Godard. So again I say people need to watch a few movies before they decide to voice their opinions about them.

4. Lord of the Rings is NOT the pinnacle of cinematic excellence. These films might have been great individually, and as a series they are certainly one of the highlights of the current decade, but do all three of these films need to be in the top 10?

5. Nicole Kidman is NOT the best actress the world has to offer. From what I can read there, most people don't seem to know who Meryl Streep is, and I doubt few of them have seen more than a film from Bette Davis, Katherine Hepburn, Joan Fontaine, or Ingrid Bergman (just a short list of some of my favorites).

6. Film didn't begin in 1972. People don't seem to go back much further than the Godfather, except to mention Stanley Kubrick (who is my favorite director so I'm not bitching about this). Of all the favorite film lists, did anyone select a silent film? Few silent films are in the top 250, and well, I just don't think anyone on that site is actually venturing into films that you have to read, and oh that black and white film it hurts your eyes.

Yeah I know I should shut up, but here people seem to be intelligent and well informed about their picks. I mean some of you here make me feel like an ignoramus, but that is part of the fun. On the one hand I wish that this site would get the kind of traffic that imdb gets, but then we'd just be clustered with a bunch of opinions from people who should just keep their mouth's shut. So post a nice "FIGHT THE POWER" if you are with me, and if you think I'm an arrogant condescending asshole, then by all means say that.

And one more rant, why do they bleep out profanity, fuck that shit.

[arsaib4]

All of your points are valid but why the hell are you spending so much time there going over lists? You should know better!

Sites likes imdb exist in a lot of countries, and what you see is that casual fans who think that their films and opinions aren't taken seriously, go there to "rate" films as that's the only way they can express themselves.

[HorseradishTree]

Originally posted by wpqx
Is everyone retarded on that site, or just plain ignorant? Now maybe I have an elitist attitude towards my knowledge of film, but I "sometimes" know when to keep my mouth shut. Let's clarify a few things, and hopefully someone on this site will back me up.

1. The Shawshank Redemption is NOT the greatest film of all time, nor is it top 5, or top 10, or in my opinion top 100.

2. Fight Club is NOT the most extraordinary film of all time. I loved this movie and saw it probably half a dozen times, but there certainly are better films than this.

3. There is more to foreign films than Kurosawa and to a lesser extent Fellini. I'm honestly surprised that Seven Samurai made their top ten, but come on? First off Seven Samurai isn't the best thing that international film has to offer. Now I could be in the minority but I don't even think it is Kurosawa's best (I'd vote for Ran, but that's a moot point). Does anyone there even know who Andrei Tarkovsky is? In all those best/worst lists not a single person mentioned Jean-Luc Godard. So again I say people need to watch a few movies before they decide to voice their opinions about them.

4. Lord of the Rings is NOT the pinnacle of cinematic excellence. These films might have been great individually, and as a series they are certainly one of the highlights of the current decade, but do all three of these films need to be in the top 10?

5. Nicole Kidman is NOT the best actress the world has to offer. From what I can read there, most people don't seem to know who Meryl Streep is, and I doubt few of them have seen more than a film from Bette Davis, Katherine Hepburn, Joan Fontaine, or Ingrid Bergman (just a short list of some of my favorites).

6. Film didn't begin in 1972. People don't seem to go back much further than the Godfather, except to mention Stanley Kubrick (who is my favorite director so I'm not bitching about this). Of all the favorite film lists, did anyone select a silent film? Few silent films are in the top 250, and well, I just don't think anyone on that site is actually venturing into films that you have to read, and oh that black and white film it hurts your eyes.

Yeah I know I should shut up, but here people seem to be intelligent and well informed about their picks. I mean some of you here make me feel like an ignoramus, but that is part of the fun. On the one hand I wish that this site would get the kind of traffic that imdb gets, but then we'd just be clustered with a bunch of opinions from people who should just keep their mouth's shut. So post a nice "FIGHT THE POWER" if you are with me, and if you think I'm an arrogant condescending asshole, then by all means say that.

And one more rant, why do they bleep out profanity, fuck that shit.


Hear, hear. That's why I go here for discussion. The forums on imdb are full of idiots who only feel the need to insult each other.

At least they have a nice "database" overall.

[cinemabon]

I must confess to going to IMDB when I first logged on to the internet years ago (Yahoo clubs, too) because I had difficulty finding credible places to express an opinion. I now regard IMDB merely as a source for cast lists and bios. There are many more "credible" sites for film criticism, especially those serious about journalism or on a scholarly level (The people to ask are Oscar, Johann, Chris, Schumann and the other regulars. Sorry if I didn't mention someone. Those are the hard core critics on this site). The lists you refer to and disagree with are made up of young teens who see IMDB referred to as a source on sites like Amazon.com. When they link over, they join and start rattling off their opinions left and right like a chat room.

I respect everyone's right to express an opinion, but when it comes to film, I only take the time to read someone that sounds intelligent from the start. Misspelled words, improper grammer, and uninformed writers plague that site.

Lastly, I understand your revulsion to certain films others like. I hated "A.I." while many on this site love it. I like "Shawshank" but I sympathize with your lonely stance.

[Howard Schumann]

The Classics Board on IMdb is the best overall film discussion site I've participated in. I have been there now for five years and have had some outstanding discussions. The fact that it draws people from all over the world allows the board to offer insights into films that are not readily available elsewhere. Sure there are some yahoos and people who cannot discuss a film without a personal attack but most of the regulars are extremely knowledgeable, civil and very articulate.

[Johann]

wpqx and I have similar ideas about the imdb.

I could launch into a big rant as well. The imdb is like a microcosm of the earth- you got your jokers, idiots, clowns and goofs, but you also have some supremely keen, artistic, erudite and helpful people.

It's my bane and my boon.

[Chris Knipp]

If it were not for IMDb I would not be here, because I was contacted to participate through my IMDb Comments, and I was also contacted for several other sites online that print movie comments or reviews. And IMDb has also led me to direct contacts with many other people, including journalists covering controversy over a film, a director or two, and folks from all over the world. And a couple I've persuaded to come here.

Some say IMDb was better a few years ago, but that was before my time. It obviously has its virtues and its faults but it is a major site, an invaluable database, and despite the existence of similar sites in other countries, it's the biggest and the most international, if I don't miss my guess.

I'm more curious though about what people think of the new formatting for IMDb Comments, and perhaps for other things? I find that it works better in some respects than the old one, because some of the processes have been trimmed down, but the actual look of it is inferior. It makes it hard to see who wrote what, and the sequence of Comments is too broken up. Too often on the Internet things are reformatted just to make it new and the result is not an improvement overall. I fear this may be the case with IMDb's format changes.

[hengcs]

The 2 pros about IMDB are:
- the number of people
- for a particular movie, the thread is always there ...
(yet this is also a cons)

The 2 cons are:
- in the OVERALL message boards, a message always got "submerged" and "disappeared" very fast
- in the INDIVIDUAL MOVIE message board, it is focused but after a while, one will NOT access the particular movie to read or post. In a way, you might not be able to contribute if someone watches the movie much later than you. Conversely, you might not be able to get the replies if you are one of the latest to watch.

[Chris Knipp]

These are arguments in favor of posting comments early and posting them especially about movies that few see. You can post a comment on an older movie nobody has seen, and then anybody who looks it up will read your comment.

And there are other important elements of IMDb, such as Message Boards and threads, notably the Classic Film thread, as Howard Schumann has mentioned.

[hengcs]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
These are arguments in favor of posting comments early and posting them especially about movies that few see.


Are we talking about the "Individual Movie Message Board" or the "Overall Message Board"? Either way, many of us don't really have a choice (at times) about posting early or late due to DIFFERENT screening time in DIFFERENT countries.
e.g. I would post in "Infernal Affairs" 2 years ago, but there are quite a number of recent posts due to recent screening in US. I would not have decided to log onto that movie webpage to answer the queries there.
e.g. I have only recently watched "Gloomy Sunday" (1999) (due to its recent screening here), but many people in Germany or Hungary or Europe have watched it so long ago that they might not read my posts to answer the queries, or have forgotten some details to answer the queries.


Originally posted by Chris Knipp
You can post a comment on an older movie nobody has seen, and then anybody who looks it up will read your comment.


I think you are talking about the "General Message Board"?!
However, the new messages quickly get "disappeared" into p.3,4,5 etc due to the large volume of posts.

Nonetheless, I like IMDB for its large database and number of participants.
;)

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by hengcs
I have only recently watched "Gloomy Sunday" (1999) (due to its recent screening here

Hengs, your profile page is practically empty. Do you mind telling us where you are located and maybe post your personal Top 10 All Time list. You are a "regular" now, y'know.

[Chris Knipp]

hengcs--I was talking about "Comments" posted on particular movies. Not message boards, I don't know much about them.

I know it depends where you are what you can see, but if you go to or rent enough offbeat, unusual films, you will find some that have no Comments posted for them, or under ten.

The new system I think is going to mean people will not go through as many of the Comments when there are a lot, because they are more divided up into pages. This is one of the things I don't think is an improvement. But the new system does make it easier to post and edit Comments. On the other hand, now they are much stricter about long Comments. Before, if you went over 1000 words, they'd pass it anyway. A Comment as long as 1,400 words would be posted. Now anything over 1000 is automatically rejected.

[hengcs]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
Hengs, your profile page is practically empty. Do you mind telling us where you are located and maybe post your personal Top 10 All Time list. You are a "regular" now, y'know.

ha ha ... I will try to post soon ...

Anyway, I am a Singaporean who has been in SF for about 4.5 years now.

Hmmm ... I always find it tough to rank films, because

-- I like art films and Hollywood films, and comparing the two are tough. I also like foreign films (Asia, Europe, etc) and US films. Again, I do not know how to rank them ... Adding to that, I also find that genre will compound the problem ... drama will usually prevail ... and for me, the problem of recency effects too ... ;PPP

-- okay okay, maybe I will think of a way to indicate ... hee hee

[Chris Knipp]

I am a Singaporean who has been in SF for about 4.5 years now

That makes us neighbors. I live in the East Bay.

I agree on ranking problems. I make separate lists of US best movies and foreign ones for each year, also set up some other categores like documentary. Maybe it would be best to rate only by genre, best actioner, best indie, best romantic story, etc.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I make separate lists of US best movies and foreign ones for each year

I make separate lists depending on whether the film is primarily English language or not. Why split the list in two to begin with? Because I usually have about 20 films every year I want to honor by placing in a Top 10 list. And because roughly half of them are subtitled. And because it's functional for me to have a list ready for some lazy relatives and friends who simply won't read subs.

It's been quite difficult for years to separate films by country, because so many are co-produced by two or more countries. There's a debate in France right now as to whether A Very Long Engagement should be considered a French film (for the purpose of nominations and such). The Motorcycle Diaries is listed at IMDb as Country: USA/Germany/UK/Argentina/Chile/Peru. The Machinist is listed as exclusively Spanish (meaning from Spain of course). Hero depended largely on American money for its budget. I could go on.

Separating by genre is just as convoluted, if not more so.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
It's been quite difficult for years to separate films by country, because so many are co-produced by two or more countries. There's a debate in France right now as to whether A Very Long Engagement should be considered a French film (for the purpose of nominations and such). The Motorcycle Diaries is listed at IMDb as Country:USA/Germany/UK/Argentina/Chile/Peru. The Machinist is listed as exclusively Spanish (meaning from Spain of course). Hero depended largely on American money for its budget. I could go on.

Good point. Number of co-production have increased drastically in the last few years, especially in Europe for variety of reasons but primarily for cost certainty.

French court ruled against Long Engagement and thus it's not eligible for any subsidies/tax breaks from the French government. However, changes are being made in the overall structure to ensure the filmmakers who decide to follow the path of Mr. Jeunet.

[SinjinSB]

While I agree with most of the original rants, IMDB (IMO) is the best movie site around. Their database, while not perfect, has got to be the most complete around. I have been frequenting it since it began as an excellent source of information on movies, actors, etc.

I think most of your complaints can be explained by the quantity and average age of the IMDB raters and Message board users. You gotta figure it's the kids that dominate the site. FTR, I'm 34 and I'm sure that's well above average.

About the ratings, you definitely have to take them with a grain of salt. My theory is that most of the ratings are done by folks that haven't seen a lot of the best movies. So when they see a really good movie (like the LOTR trilogy), it's the best movie they've ever seen. I enjoyed the trilogy a lot, but of course they don't belong in the top 10 movies of all time.

As far as the message boards, there's is good with the bad. I've had some wonderful discussions. You learn to spot the threads that will quickly turn into flame wars. Some of the boards are better than others. Generally, the more popular the board, the higher the junk posts are. I frequent the Best/Worst board when I have the time, but it does get a little annoying sometimes. I also enjoy the classic board, the hitchcock board, the video board...and occasionally others.

So yes, I definitely understand your frustration, but at least for me, the good far out ways the bad. Hey, my favorite movie of all-time isn't on their Top 250 list ;-)

As one poster said, I think it was someone who saw my posts there that invited me to FilmWurld. I have enjoyed this site a lot and have been exposed to films and opinions that I probably wouldn't have found elsewhere (or would have had to dig deeper for).

I've been really busy in recent months and haven't done much posting anywhere and my movie watching has been less than normal too. But, when I have the time, I usually stop by here first before heading to the IMDB boards. Because there's less to go through here, and the average quality is much higher.

[Chris Knipp]

I'm not caught up on all the comments in this thread but I can see there are some good ones. True, IMDb has lots of faults. It's not rocket science.

SinjinSB's comment is quite right though. Something as big and popular and commerical as IMDb can't be sophisticated sounding as a whole, but can provide a great deal of useful information and a wonderful outlet for everybody.Whatever its faults, IMDb is still the basic online reference on film. What else is as complete and accessible?

You can take what you need and leave the rest. I've actually never even consulted their "ratings". The focus on such stuff seems to be on the rise, though. Now every viewer Comment is to have "ratings" attached to it. Such ratings are for the birds, though the metacritic numerical values for films are a good indicator of the critical reception of a film, aren't they?

FimWurld is a good antidote to IMDb, small, quiet, and quality stuff.