How Accurate is IMDb for film ranking? (1 Viewer)

[Eric Huffstutler]

I am trying to put together a list of Sci-Fi and Horror films on DVD or soon to be) that represents ONE film per year that ranks as the defenitive movie of each genera between 1950-1970.

For example, some years are easy for the Sci-Fi catagory such as 1950 "Destination Moon"; 1951 "The Day The Earth Stood Still"; 1953 "War of the Worlds"; 1960 "The Time Machine"... but some are a bit confusing by their "voting" scores. Take for instance 1956. The database shows "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" to beat out "Forbidden Planet" and "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers". Or 1955 where "Tarantula" beat out "This Island Earth" and "Conquest of Space" and 1968 where "2001: A Space Odyssey" beat out "Planet of the Apes". (I believe Apes was more popular when released than 2001)

Then you have further confusion with split genera such as "Creature From the Black Lagoon" listed as both Horror and Sci-Fi. For Sci-Fi in 1954 "Them!" beats out "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and Creature... and on the Horror list "Them!" again beats out Creature followed by "The Bowery Boys Meet the Monster" - go figure? How would you pick one for Sci-Fi and Horror in this case?

In any event, how accurate is that database? For in fact, in 1964 it shows "Fail-Safe" as the top continder for Sci-Fi where it doesn't even list "Dr. Strangelove" as a Sci-Fi but simply a Comedy when in fact the two movies contended to see who could be out in the theaters first. Much like "The Nutty Professor" or "Monkey Business" being listed as a Sci-Fi?????

HELP!!!!

Eric

 

[Darrell Bratz]

What criteria have you used so far? Is it all from IMDB? You're trying to use user ratings to establish this?

 

[Josh Simpson]

For me, imdb rankings are good for curiosity and entertainment. With certain movies, you are always going to have those who are are "haters" who will give a movie a 1 rating, or someone who loves a director or actor who will automatically give it a 10 rating. I wouldn't place too much faith in it.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Eric,

IMDB rankings are the result of an unscientific poll of users who choose to offer their subjective opinions. Nothing objective is being measured; therefore "accuracy" does not apply. If you don't agree with the rankings, use your own judgment. For example, feel free to rank FORBIDDEN PLANET higher than BODY SNATCHERS, or 2001 higher than APES. Go ahead and classify STRANGELOVE as sci-fi if you wish (I do).

Why don't you post your list as it is now, so we can help you fill in the gaps and/or debate your choices? That could be fun.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I'd like to see the list as well.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Yes, user ratings but some show thousands and those I put more faith in that one title that has 10 votes - especially titles I don't even recognize.

Here you go Rob... Make your selection from the Options. The most popular one is listed first.

Sci-Fi (I'll do Horror later)

1950 - "Destination Moon"

1951 - "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

1952 - Options: "Monkey Business" (I consider a Comedy); "Red Planet Mars"

1953 - "War of the Worlds"

1954 - Options: "Them!"; "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea"; "Creature From the Black Lagoon"

1955 - Options: "Tarantula"; "It Came From Beneath the Sea"; "This Island Earth"; Conquest of Space"

1956 - Options: "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"; "Forbidden Planet"; "Godzilla"; "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers"

1957 - "The Incredible Shrinking Man" ("20 Million Miles to Earth" was a close second)

1958 - Options: "The Fly"; "The Blob"; "I Married a Monster From Outer Space"

1959 - Options: "On the Beach"; "Journey to the Center of the Earth"; "The Tingler"; "The World, the Flesh, and the Devil"

1960 - "The Time Machine" ("Village of the Damned" was second)

1961 - Options: "Mysterious Island"; "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea"

1962 - Options: "Panic in the Year Zero!"; "This Is Not a Test"

1963 - Options: "X: The Man With the X-Ray Eyes"; "The Nutty Professor"

1964 - Options: "Fail-Safe"; "Robinson Crusoe on Mars"; "Dr. Strangelove"

1965 - Options: "Crack in the World"; "The Satan Bug"; "The Earth Dies Screaming"

1966 - Options: "Fantastic Voyage"; "Seconds"

1967 - Options: (not much here) "In Like Flint"; "Electronic Labyrinth THX 1138"; The President's Analyst"

1968 - Options: "2001: A Space Odyssey"; "Planet of the Apes"; "Night of the Living Dead" (I consider Horror)

1969 - Options: "The Illustrated Man"; "The Valley of Gwangi"

1970 - Options: 'Colossus: The Forbin Project"; "Beneath the Planet of the Apes"

If you can think of more - feel free to add your idea as to what should be the single title for each year.

Eric

 

[Steve Armbrust]

For 1967, you could also consider "Journey to the Center of Time."

1968 also included "Barbarella" and "Charly," for which Cliff Robertson won an Oscar. A pretty good year for SF.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Steve... "Journey to the Center of Time" only received a 3.1 out of 10 rating

You're right, I overlooked "Charly" which got a high score but don't think I've seen it? I don't know why it is listed as a Sci-Fi though being mainly a Drama about a mentally challanged person?

As for "Barbarella", it wasn't on my Sci-Fi list though it should be. They have it listed as a Adventure/Fantasy/Sci-Fi which may have thrown it off? In any event, it also didn't rank very high - only 5.4 out of 10 stars so wouldn't have been one of my Options.

With the options given, can you decide on "one" per year?

 

[Martin Teller]

1965: Alphaville

 

[Joe Lugoff]

This is the problem with ranking things (or giving awards) by years -- obviously, some years are MUCH better than others.

Thus, a classic like "The Thing" loses, because it happened to come out the same year as "The Day the Earth Stood Still" --- while the low caliber "Red Planet Mars" might win, because it had the good fortune of coming out in the poorest year (for science fiction movies) in the 1950s.

By the way, in 1968, "2001: A Space Odyssey" was as successful at the boxoffice as "Planet of the Apes" (although, being a roadshow, the prices were higher), and definitely more successful critically.

In early 1969, Variety printed the "Top Ten" lists of a large number of movie critics all around the country. I added up the "totals," so to speak, by giving each #1 ten points, #2 nine points, etc., and "2001: A Space Odyssey" came in first (of all movies, not just genre movies) by a wide margin. The fact that it didn't get a Best Picture Oscar nomination is my best piece of evidence that the Oscars don't mean much.

 

[Steve Armbrust]

Charly was based on a great story, "Flowers for Algernon," by Daniel Keyes. The SF premise is that scientists could greatly enhance the intelligence of a retarded person. Cliff Robertson undergoes the experiment and becomes a genius, for a while. Not space ships and aliens, but thought provoking.

 

[Darrell Bratz]

Surely Gojira/Godzilla for 1954.

I would be tempted to go both Quatermass Xperiment for '55 and Quatermass 2 for '57.

I'm a fan of Four Sided Triangle ('53) but virtually no one else is and wouldn't expect you to dislodge War of the Worlds for it.

Ikarie XB 1 ('63)

La Jetee ('62)

 

[Claire Panke]

I'm not sure I understand why you'd want a list that's comprised of the "definitive" sci-fi film of each year from these decades - as Joe noted, the number of films released and their quality varies greatly from year to year. It would be the only time Red Planet Mars made anybody's best of list LOL. I simply would never want to classify films in this way - it simply wouldn't be meaningful to me. ('Course, being ancient, I saw fari few of these in theaters back in the day...when I was a mere child.)

More relevant to actual quality would be a list of the definitive (or best or most influential, whatever) sci-fi films of the *era* 1950-1970. Again, IMBD is a handy resource because its easily accessible but I wouldn't call it...er..."definitive" (e.g. the genre classification overlap).

Charly qualifies as sci-fi because it's a speculative story : a developmentally disabled hero is the subject of a scientific experiement which seeks to raise human intelligence through drug therapies.

Why don't you ask the forumites what their top films from this era are?

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Or why not allow more than one "winner" in a year -- or "no winner" in poor years like 1952? But then the whole thing starts to get meaningless, I guess.

As for the two decade "era" of 1950-69, I'd vote for "2001: A Space Odyssey," especially considering the impact it had in its original Cinerama showings. There was absolutely nothing like it.

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" obviously contains many parallels to the story of Jesus, but "2001" is even more religious, and suggests human beings should start all over again in their search for ultimate meaning in the Universe. We don't find much profound thinking in science fiction movies, but "2001" gives a lot of food for thought.

I also think the moment when the shot of the bone in the air changes to the shot of the spaceship floating in space is the single greatest moment in movie history. That's an effect that can only be achieved in film -- and it says something amazing and awe inspiring about human beings in one split second.

 

[Simon Howson]

It's impossible, because picking best movies is completely subjective.

If you limit yourself to one specific aesthetic criteria then you have a better chance, but to do that you'd need to completely understand the history of that criteria.

Also, classifying films into genres is problematic. Do you classify them based on intended affect (comedies make you laugh, horror films are scary), or based on industrial genres (which is essentially only Western, Musical, War film, Melodrama). Not to mention that most films are really hybrids of two or more genres. Is Mars Attacks a comedy or a sci fi film, or both? Is Dr Strangelove a sci fi, comedy, or a war film?

 

[ted:r]

Just a general comment on lists:

Lists are basically the basis for arguments. People debate the criteria of the lists and what's on the list. It's a fun way to get discussions started, though of course some people get way overheated about such things. In the end, there is so such thing as a definitive list. Its all just an individual's (or group of individuals) opinion at the time. (The time element is important. What make look fine today may look ridiculous 10 years hence. Doe that mean the people who made this list were geniuses then and now are idiots? Of course not. Just that times and opinions change.) If you generally agree with the list, then the makers are sage and wise human beings. If not, they are obviously fools and idiots who wouldn't know art from a hole in the ground.

As a compulsive list maker (see below), I realize the problem of selecting one film a year as best. Of course, as has been stated, some years have two or more great films while some years have none. Still, if that's the parameter the list maker wants to choose, then that is his/her right.

 

[Mark B]

for 1962, I would suggest THE DAY THE EARTH CAUGHT FIRE

 

[Joe Lugoff]

And this raises another problem with doing things by year -- THE DAY THE EARTH CAUGHT FIRE opened in England (the country of its origin) in 1961, but in the US in 1962 ------- so what year do we consider it to be, on this international forum?

I prefer people listing their favorites, rather than what they think are the greatest, which is not only subjective, but depends on certain nostalgic factors. For instance, I have much fonder memories of something like "The Brain Eaters" than "Forbidden Planet," because I remember seeing "The Brain Eaters" at a Saturday matinee when I was a kid, while gorging myself on popcorn, ice cream and candy. (And the whole afternoon cost me fifty cents.)

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

This thread kinda fell off the radar and wanted to bring it back up as no one has given suggestions for a single title per year from the selections given. Thanks.

 

[Irina]

www.imdb.com is based on rating by non-professional critics and the overall ratings should be treated with caution.

In addition to imdb.com I use www.mrqe.com and www.rottentomatoes.com with rating by professional critics.