It's mildly frustrating to see this pop in and out of the top 250; however, I noticed that when it's in the to 250, it's not counted as a 'short', and then as soon as it gets taken off, that 'short' category is slapped back on it. Are contributors playing a game of tennis with the top 250 here?
Just keep it in the top 250 already, where it most surely deserves a spot!
I proclaim ignorance in everything I say.
I agree entirely with you. It's indeed frustrating and it does indeed deserve a spot.
shareIt is quite aggravating. I remember a month ago, two Keaton films were in the top 250 and now none
shareOn the other hand, as long as it is out of the Top 250, there won't be so many 1-voters in order to put the rating down.
shareOn the other hand, as long as it is out of the Top 250, there won't be so many 1-voters in order to put the rating down.
well there are over 14,000 1 voters for The Godfather. It's just a product of someone wanting a movie's rating to go down.
shareanother example of why "popular opinion" and the internet are mutually exclusive
shareThis is not a short, sure it is shorter than most feature films but it is longer than a short film. keep the short tag off as it isclearly not a short
want free IMDb pro? click on the IMDb pro button (top of page) enter your details, press alt+F4
The version I saw is just over 44 minutes, meeting the definition of a short, at least in IMDb terms.
Right. If it's less than 50 minutes, it's technically a short. More than an hour: technically a feature. If it's between 50 minutes and an hour, it can go either way, and sort of depends on the nature of the film.
"Sherlock Jr." is a masterpiece, hands down. Calling it a short isn't an insult, it's just what it is. Probably one of the better shorts ever made, and definitely at the long end of the short spectrum. The only negative result is that shorts don't qualify for the Top 250.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences say over 40 minutes is a feature under 40 minutes is a short, your method sound like something you just made up.
If submitted for an Oscar now it would not be able to enter as a short only as a feature, therefor it's a feature.
----
Even if you hate Uwe Boll, give Postal a try, be offended or entertained.
That's more likely just a sign of the poor "If I like it it's 10, if I don't it's 1" strategy that a lot of people here seems to run with, rather than some form of manipulation. Same reason The Dark Knight is so high on the list.
shareTruth be told, I can understand why people would dislike The Godfather (even though I really liked it).
However, I can't understand how anyone could possibly dislike this movie.
I'm reasonably sure that vote-saboteurs aren't counted (for calculation of the movie score). Those who vote 1 are not likely to be regular voters or sensible voters so will be excluded I'd say. So will the people who score everything 10.
I find the scores at IMDb pretty useful, although I've never worried too much about whether something is 8.1 or 8.4 etc.
The General is in there, has been for a while, and I remember seeing another one in there (the cameraman? possibly even this), but after skimming through the top 250 just now, I can't find any others.
But I definitely agree that it should be in top 250, without a doubt. Many people have their own opinions, but without movies like keaton's, the outcome of comedy today would be much, much different.
"I know what I know and I know I don't like that nutsack."
[deleted]
[deleted]
I do think it's sad that anyone could rate a film like this a 1.
The worst group for this kind of thing being of course the under 18s, 65% of votes being 1(with girls the worst offenders % wise)
I wish there was some way you could make the imdb come up with a top 1000 or something, based on your personal criteria, ignoring under 18 voters for example.
It's very sad that people vote movies without seeing them. I am under 18 but feel this is Keaton's best work. Unfortunately, other teenagers just want the Dark Knight to be higher on the list instead of this (don't get me wrong, TDK was a very good movie). Before voting on a movie, you should have to take a short quiz to make sure you understood the plot of the movie (to prove you saw it). Anyone who sees Sherlock Jr. would obviously realize it belongs in the top 250 list. It's just those people who vote stuff down that they've never seen.
share[deleted]
For one thing, Sherlock Jr. is a feature film according to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (40 minutes or longer), and should not be in the shorts section. Also, Buster Keaton is amazing! I used to think Chaplin was much better but I am becoming more and more astounded with Keaton.
shareAnd it just got changed to short again. I am going to try to find out how I can switch it back!!!
shareIt is not exactly a short. Keaton made it as a five-reeler. After poor audience response, he started cutting scenes out. Obviously, the principal part of the movie was the film-within-a-film and that needed to be retained, so Keaton hacked away at the rest hoping to speed things up and grab the audience more. By the time he was done, the picture really only had four reels left--which was indeed the standard upper limit for a short, but the film wasn't constructed as a short--check out his two-reelers to see the difference--nor was it intended to be played as a short, i.e. as an accompaniment to a feature. It was always marketed as a feature and played with a short. By the way, after all the cutting, it made less money than any of his other features and was never an audience favorite.
shareThats because it essentially IS a short and top 250 only lists feature length films.
--------------
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good men to do nothing.