Can Somebody Please Link Me This Piece on Imdb.com?

With some regularity AC movie pieces get linked on Imdb.com. Mostly these pieces are some made-up lists of personal favourites or remarkable sightings. It's quite harmless, but also very meaningless. These content producers do manage to get linked, so kudos to them. It's actually how I wound up on AC, via Imdb, my first piece being a blatant throw at getting linked. But now I'm asking: What does that mean? How much of an accomplishment is that? Does one really have to be intelligent to become US president?

In sheer quantity of information it can hardly be denied that Imdb is probably the greatest piece of reference work for the audio-visual medium. Personally I've been a daily visitor for about three years now, but I never registered. Registering is really more the social side of using it, enabling you to participate in ongoing forums and sharing opinions. I've just been observing, but now I would like to evaluate Imdb as a tool for your average movie buff, such as I. In reviewing Imdb it boils down to these two basic questions:

1. How reliable is the content?
2. What does the rating mean?

Content

The two-disc "special edition" Once upon a time in the west DVD (region 2) has a running time of 159 minutes. Yet on Imdb it says the standard running time for this feature is 165 minutes. And there's a hiatus in the film: at one point Frank (Henry Fonda) returns to his employer Morton's train carriage, only to find his gang shot dead and Morton barely alive. In a next scene Cheyenne, last seen taken off to jail, reappears in the picture. Nothing is explained, and there's six minutes supposed to be missing. A strong suspicion of mutilation is justified. Especially since I seem to remember having once seen this scene on the train: a very graphically violent scene, connecting Cheyenne's escape to Morton's demise. When I bought the DVD I remember being very hopeful of finally refinding the film's full cut. Although Imdb does provide information on silly nothings, like the train tracks in the film being of European measures, I could not find information on the violation of this film.

Imdb itself admits the information is somewhere in between hard fact, and rumours/gossip. This is because so much info is submitted, and not very much verified. For example: according to Imdb SinCity 3 is supposed to be released in 2009 and SinCity 2 in 2010. This could've been some original idea by Frank Miller or Roberto Rodriguez, but in fact it's explained by Imdb itself: the information came from the commentary track of the Sin City DVD, where FM and RR announce their willingness to do two more films. Afterwards SinCity 2 has been repeatedly postponed, and a third instalment is hanging in the balance. These kinds of contradictions are very much inherent to information on films yet to be released.

Now mistakes can be corrected. What are worse are the omissions, like my nagging suspicion of having a mutilated version of OUATITW and getting no confirmation or correction. But the larger part of the database is filled with user's comments, and is thus very opinionated. It's nowhere near being hard fact, and there are many users eager to have their say, eager to suggest daily quotes, trivia and polls. It does not seem to matter what quality, like for instance the poll on last films by great directors: it named Moby Dick for Orson Wells. It's not even made by Welles, let alone his last film. It does say something about the expertise of the staff selecting these suggestions. But more so it shows how it's more important just getting on there, than getting on there right. Right being: not suggesting wrong info, and maybe even some worthwhile.

A discussion on the reliability of Imdb as a resource can be found on Wikipedia (see link).

Rating

Way more entertaining than asserting the value of the content, is going into the rating. This is supposed to be the ultimate democratic vote on the medium, and as such can hardly be challenged. Who are you to question the opinions of the majority. Yeah right, everybody's crazy except you. Well maybe so. Because even Imdb has to admit that a full democratic voting to determine quality (be it for a film, a book or a dish) does not work. This is implied by the complicated calculating formula used on film ratings to enter the prestigious Top 250. When a film does enter, it gets a lot more exposure. Also votes are weighted differently, according to some kind of user clout level. Which means there is some kind of aristocracy going on. All opinions are equal, but some more than others. Imdb will not disclose what makes a voter a 'regular voter', a super-delegate if you will, indeed in an attempt to maintain some kind of front of democracy.

Right now Speed Racer is flopping at the box-office. On the 12^th of May, right after its opening weekend, the film got a 6.5 rating over 2780 voters. 6.7 being the overall average for Imdb-ratings, it odes not seem very auspicious. Were it not that 30.9% voted it a straight 10, and 16,6% gave it a flat 1. Of these 2780 voters 147 have posted (extensive) comments. It seems movie buffs are feuding! Normally these new movies get very high ratings: did you know for example that Pirates of the Caribbean 3 initially got an 8.8 rating over the first 1000 votes? Enthusiasts are often more motivated to give a movie exposure than it's critics. But when the stakes run so high, is it so unfeasible that some people might want to boost ratings? And how many are involved in making a film? Often more than a 1000, not counting relatives. The overworked Imdb staff must be combating these distortions on a continuous basis.

Even worse than votes being manipulated or even bought (and that's not a criminal offence in this case), is another kind of distortion. Many animals have the instinct to leave their marks. So when you don't agree with the rating, what do you do? You hand out a 1 or a 10, because a real vote doesn't do the trick. It's just very silly not being able to give a movie like Speed Racer a 4, 5, 6 or 7. It says nothing about Speed Racer, but all the more about the voters. Even the number 1 movie The godfather gets quite a few 1-ratings.There must be some very proud people around on Imdb, having exposed this one for what it is. Also here is a major feud going on, for quite a while now.

It's actually The Shawshank Redemption that should be number 1. Just look at the stats. The godfather gets a 9.1 rating, over 276.889 votes, arrhythmic mean 8.7; Shawshank also a 9.1 rating, over 327.347 votes, arrhythmic mean 9.1. Shawshank gets more 10s, 9s and 8s, and less 1s. Now explain to me again the calculating formula keeping Shawshank from the highest of all summits. Personally I guess it must the common sense of (most of) the Imdb staff, understanding that letting that happen, would mean the end for Imdb-credibility.

(Warning! Opinion alert!)

It was actually the direct cause for me to not register, the number 2 ranking of The Shawshank Redemption on the top 250. Like many, this just left me bewildered. It's not just a bad movie being overrated, I could get over that. It's the sheer arbitrariness of it. It makes we want to go out and scream: "Hey I also know a good film!" "Yeah, what?" "A beautiful mind! Hey I know another one!" "Yeah what?" "Fight club! Hey I know another one!" "Yeah what?" "Secret window! Hey!" "O god what now?" "Please kill me!" "Hey, that is a good one! But is it a film or a request? Because you're still so young!"

In December 2006 I made up a list of 24 new releases, rated over 7.5 on Imdb. I never really expected all these to be any good, but I am mostly disappointed that these ratings haven't changed much since, i.e. have dropped. Still it doesn't matter, for now that I've seen most of these films, I'm just glad I don't have to add them to my collection. It takes some experience, how to appreciate Imdb-ratings. It even goes beyond the demographics available. It's a common social phenomenon that pop culture is kind of defined by debutants. Trying to sell your stuff, it's always the younglings who are most easily fooled by something unoriginal. But more remarkable is the phenomenon of rather watching a bad new movie, than a good old one. This attitude can also be noticed in the appreciation of literature. One does not have to be young, to be infantile.

As a movie buff, I'd be selling myself short, not using the International Movie Database. As reference work it's unparalleled in sheer quantity of information. But the user does need to understand that it's not omniscient. It does not hold the truth for ransom. It does not matter how many people register, how many participate; If the level of factuality can be set out as a parabola, Imdb is probably already long gone past its high point.