[Movies] IMDB Top 250, how many have u seen?

[IIamaKing]

163

I wonder what the criteria for getting on the list is. Seeing both the new Star Trek movies and none of the old confuses me.

[draynay]

163

I wonder what the criteria for getting on the list is. Seeing both the new Star Trek movies and none of the old confuses me.

terrible people voting terribly due to terrible judgement

[Arrowstormen]

163

I wonder what the criteria for getting on the list is. Seeing both the new Star Trek movies and none of the old confuses me.

Star Trek Into Darkness is no longer on the list. You can see the list as it is today here: http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?ref_=nv_ch_250_4
Here's the critieria/formula:

The formula for calculating the Top Rated 250 Titles gives a true Bayesian estimate:

weighted rating (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C
Where:
R = average for the movie (mean) = (Rating)
v = number of votes for the movie = (votes)
m = minimum votes required to be listed in the Top 250 (currently 25000)
C = the mean vote across the whole report (currently 7.0)
For the Top 250, only votes from regular voters are considered.

terrible people voting terribly due to terrible judgement

Opinions ahoy!

[Deleted]

106, surprised but satisfied. The Top250-list is a great tool for inspiration, lots of classic films!

[imabanana]

Also, IMDb works splendid, if you've got issues with it the fault, if there's any, lies in your own opinion. Can't say subjective movie ratings are wrong when they're decided by the general audience, only they don't strike your own (exotic) taste.

I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying imdb doesn't factor in the "WOWNEWMOVIE" factor in its top, making lots of blockbusters reach a high rank for a few days/weeks then disappear forever (for example the star trek that's on the OP link but no longer on imdb top), when their "real" rating is reached.

A separate list excluding movies released for less than a year or something like that would be much more meaningful imo.

[Arrowstormen]

I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying imdb doesn't factor in the "WOWNEWMOVIE" factor in its top, making lots of blockbusters reach a high rank for a few days/weeks then disappear forever (for example the star trek that's on the OP link but no longer on imdb top), when their "real" rating is reached.

A separate list excluding movies released for less than a year or something like that would be much more meaningful imo.

Eh. It's pretty hard to get on it since it only counts regular voters. As of now, there is 5 movies from 2013 on it (6 if you count The Hunt.) The Hunt, Rush and Gravity are the only ones that are placed pretty solidly. Before Midnight, Catching Fire and Prisoners are pretty flux.

The list evolves as new names and old names go, and so do the industry. The list has it's own eco balance. There are currently four movies from 2012 on the list, Django Unchained, Life of Pi, The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers. The older a movie is and the more votes it's score has, the more solid it is. But it is pretty neat/interesting to see movies flux until they find their semi-final place. Gives some advertisement to the movie too, so more people will see it and rate it afterwards.

Movies like 12 Years a Slave has a whooping 8.7 on IMDb, and is superloved by critics and is already getting a lot of attention for the awards, but it's not very widely known and doesn't have enough votes to hit the list yet, so they don't get a chance to find their "final" place and some spotlight.

[Feali]

Watched 80. But I'm still very young.

[Terahertz]

35

Kind of shocked tbh. Many of the ones I've seen I've already known of, but some movies really seemed like... wtf is this.

Also kind of shocked to see "The Pianist" in this list. I had to watch that movie for history class and was kind of demotivated to watch it because of the title, but the story and plot were actually -really- good. If you haven't seen this movie and you thoroughly enjoyed Schindler's List then you should watch "The Pianist" as well.