top 250?
I know this just came out and not many people have seen it yet but it already has an 8.4 which beats out mnay other movies so shouldn't it be placed in the top 250
"I'm out Jerry, And I'm loving every minute of it !"
Films in the Top 250 need something like 4,000 votes and a certain, unknown percentage of votes from "prolific" voters. It's a bullsh*t list, anyhow, with scores of immensely powerful and sublime films like Army in the Shadows nowhere to be seen - none of Melville's films are on the list, in fact, which says a lot about who votes for films at IMDb.
"We forfeit three-fourths of ourselves in order to be like other people." - Arthur Schopenhauer
The Top 250 is not a bullsh*t list. Rather than characterizing the voters as "prolific," it would be more accurate to say that the system screens out first-timers and people who rarely rate films or visit the site -- but only when calculating the "weighted" rankings. Everyone and anyone can rate a film and their ratings are tallied. They're just not counted when calculating the weighted ranking.
Weighted rankings are a pretty scientifically accepted and reasonable way to calcuate such things, and IMDb has a very good methodology and formula behind its rankings. They are designed to protect films from spam polling and to prevent ridiculously popular junk movies like Spiderman (which everyone saw, and which contains the stupidest dialogue I've heard in about a decade) from being ranked above, say, above The Godfather -- just because every boob in a smelly T-shirt saw it and that it was "AWESOME!!!".
A film such as Army of Shadows doesn't have quite enough votes to get pushed into the top 250. This is because the weighted ranking formula -- again -- is sophisticated enough to prevent, say, your brother's home movie from competing among the great films just because 12 of his dearest friends each registered on-line 100 times at IMDb and ranked his film a 10. His film isn't a 10, it's a one, and a piece of driveling crap at that. Tell that to your brother. And tell him to call me.
Also, the ranking is not designed to tell you how "good" a film is, just how it ranks among the most well-known AND top-rated films. This is what gives a film "weight" in such a ranking. Army of Shadows high average rating speaks for itself. Don't worry that it's not in the Top 250.
Just do a little reading and think through the system. It makes sense.
Yeah i think that we all get what the imdb top 250 list is, but i think the imdb could publish a less pruned version of its list alongside it or in some subdirectory, not to gratify people who are annoyed that their favourite movie is not in the list even though it ranks 9.2, but because such a list would be an excellent tool for cinephiles to find out about obscure movie classics. For myself i know about EVERY movie in the top 250, but i wouldnt have discovered this movie using the imdb in a million years (i only discovered it because the National Film Theatre in England has put out a new print). We must not neglect the importance of lists, the AFI has a hugely influential top 100 list. Many Americans and people internationally who should know better, think that a good filmic education is to watch all the movies in that lists. In doing so they will never hear about Maya Deren, Guy Maddin, John Cassavetes or Stan Brakhage, they will think that Lawrence of Arabia and A Clockwork Orange are American films, that Citizen Kane is better than Touch of Evil (or for that matter, The Lady from Shanghai, or Mr Arkadin, in fact all of Welles movies), that Shane is a good movie, and even (sigh) that Spielberg is a great director. So you see why cinephiles take lists like the imdb top 250 quite seriously?
Talking of people with smelly t-shirts voting:
no2 in the top 250: The Shawshank Redemption
no4 : The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
no8 : Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back
no15: The Usual Suspects
no18: Cidade de Deus
etc
Obviously this list has its place, many ppl love to think what connoisseurs they are when they see that Star Wars is as good as they thought it was (even though its a racially stereotyping, unimaginative camp-fest of dated special effects and 0-dimensional characters, and a celebration of non-narration). And we should celebrate the sheer number of people that are thusly involved with the imdb. However please can you hide an unexpurgated list somewhere for us? Then 'us in the know' might be able to celebrate genius film-making. I promise i wont be offended when i come across your brothers 'crap' home movie, even if i come across 10 of his pieces of 'crap' for every Army of Shadows i will be a happy bunny rabbit. Tell that to your brother. But dont tell him to phone me, theres only so much adenoidal whine i can take.
A big problem I have with the Top 250 is that people vote AGAINST movies to keep their rating down. Case in point, Brokeback Mountain, which has a crazy-high percentage of 9's and 10's (over 50%), yet it is not in the Top 250 because of its disproportionately high percentage of 1's. C'mon, there's no way anybody who knows anything whatsoever about movies could give Brokeback Mountain a 1. Clearly homophobia is at play. Accordingly, the imdb editors should discount a certain percentage of low and high votes (the highs for the repeat voters on other e-mail addresses) to give the list more credibility. As for Army of Shadows, saw it today, gave it a 9. Felt the first 45 minutes were disconnected from the rest, but what a quietly powerful film in the tradition of Grand Illusion.
shareI have about 450 votes and I awarded both of those rather pedestrian, ordinary films, Army of Shadows and BBM, ratings of 5 which is all they deserve.
My Vote History: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=11249752
i also dislike the top 250 list. aside from its having an inadequate sense of history, its biggest problem is that there is no way to account for how many votes are coming from users who have actually seen the films in question. but, such is the nature of a democratic approach to lists and awards, among other things.
shareInteresting analysis, paulklenk, but I've got a couple'o questions.
You say that the top 250 methodology is designed to, "... prevent ridiculously popular junk movies like Spiderman ..." from getting a high rank (above the Godfather!) on the list.
Sorry, but when I take a look at the list, it is stuffed with "ridiculously popular junk movies," as you call them (not sure which ones you refer to, but lets take, for example, Grindhouse). If the intention is as you say, it doesn't seem to be working too well.
Another point ...you say the ranking is not designed to be an indicator of how "good" a film is. And I've hear different versions, that the list is a ranking of the probability that a view will enjoy a movie, etc.
But the fact is, that voters choose on a scale going from excellent (10) to awful (1). Now, excellent basically means "very good," and when we say something is awful, we usually mean it is "bad."
So, when voters cast their ballots, they at least think, according to the choices presented, that they are indeed voting on how "good" a movie is. Now how the hell do you turn around and say the list isn't a ranking of "goodness," when that's what voters are voting for?
Personally, I accept your statement that the top 250 is not a ranking of best or "good" films at all. However, since that's what people are voting on, it does indeed mean that the list is Bullsh*t.
[deleted]