What's new

IMDb.com Top 250: Disappointing At Times (1 Viewer)

Chuck C

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2001
Messages
2,224
I blame it on fanboy syndrome too...people are fresh out of the theater and enjoy the big blockbusters, so they go to the movie site they just found out about (i.e. imdb) and give it a 10/10. But what happens to the great movie they saw twenty years ago that's better than the blockbuster they just saw? nothing...it's either getting no vote or a lesser vote because it's not "fresh" in the viewer's mind.
 

Brian Lawrence

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 28, 1998
Messages
3,634
Real Name
Brian
I have never noticed the IMDB claiming that the top 250 ranked films, are the 250 best films. The list simply presents a breakdown of how IMDB members voted on a film. Those who vote on the IMDB seem to be a mixture of Joe-sixpacks , movie buffs, and film snobs, all combined.
No list is perfect, But in my opinion the IMDB 250 is the best compromise to come up with a list for all tastes.
How bout Forrest Gump vs. Spider-Man? #157 vs. #151 respectfully...no way Spider-Man was better than Forrest Gump
I have not yet seen Spiderman, but even if I hate it, I suspect it will still be a better film than Gump :thumbsdown:
 

TheoGB

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 18, 2001
Messages
1,744
I wrote to the IMDB a few years ago and asked if they could find a way to give special credit to older movies that have stood the test of time for many years. They said no, but I still think it's a good idea. I can't think of any other way to counter the way the list is so heavily skewed to newer films, some of which might be all but forgotten in twenty years.
But taste is only ever fleeting. The list will always be what it is.

Surely the sign of a great film is that it *does* appear in the list despite being a film that the 'fanboys' and the 1/10 and 10/10ers probably haven't even seen.

I think this sort of reactionary attitude is counter-productive, and only serves to make people less inclined to see such movies.

You can say: "2001 is a brilliant movie and is really worth seeing" or you can say: "Hollywood's lost it! They just can't produce classics like they used to. You guys should go and watch 2001 and see what a *real* movie's like!"

Personally I often feel it's the latter attitude you get about classic movies and it's one that doesn't foster people going to see such things...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top