I have watched Throne of Blood bounce in and out of the Top 250 for a month now. One day it is in, the next it is out, the next day it is in again. I dont understand why it doing this when its total rating score is 8.l and should be ranked 90-118. However when it does pop into the Top 250 it bearly charts between 240 and 250.
There are several films that have less votes that are in the Top 250. Can someone help me out here.
Thanks,
It was my understanding that it was some combination of total score and number of votes.
Now that I've looked at it more closely, it appears even more arbitrary than I first believed.
The films currently rated at 8.1 range from Smultronstället with 5,749 votes, to The Sixth Sense with 100,473 votes.
Still, The Sixth Sense is ranked at #115, while The General is ranked at #101 with only 6,879 votes.
Sullivan's Travels is in the Top 250 with a 7.8 rating despite having 481 fewer votes than Throne of Blood.
Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps write the administrator?
The "Top 250" will always be a sham...people are voting en masse for current American Blockbusters, not the great films from 1920s-70s, which is why the new Batman film* is already set to crack the top 100 films. Older, foreign films do not fare well.
At least Kurosawa manages to hold the only non-American film in the top 10?
Man, look at the top 10:
2 Godfathers
2 Star Wars
2 Lord of the Rings
I'll never understand The Shawshank Redemption being anywhere near that list, let alone in second place.
* no dig at Batman Begins...I have not seen it, I've enjoyed the previous films of the director. Still, I can't see it deserving to be on that list.
I guess that everyone who knows a little about good films is aware that the IMDB top 250 is horsesh*t.
For a far more accurate list check:
http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top100films.htm
[deleted]
To answer your question to why it is ranked so much lower on the 250 top list, than movies with a lower average and fewer votes, is simple because "For this top 250, only votes from regular voters are considered", that concludes that "ordinary" voters can quite possibly give this movie a very high average, but without high votes from the regular voters, it can not, make the 250 list. That is why movies with fewer votes can outrank a movie with 10 times as many votes. The line between ordinary and regular voters, can not clearly be pinpointed (at least not by me), because the information is classified. Nobody knows wether they are ordinary or regular voters for sure, because no one tells you if you are a regular. This is (I think) to secure the 250 list from Trolls and singletime voters, because such opinions are not (in the eyes of IMDb) considered to be valid enough for the list. There has been rumours about how you become a regular voter (though none of these have ever been proved), some say that in order to be considered a regular voter, you must have voted for at least 300 titles, and must keep an average of 3 votes every month. But as I said these are rumours and nobody , as far as I know, has ever proved them right.
I hope that answers your question.
And btw. Saying that everyone who knowns about good films, is aware that the list is horsesh*t, is in my opinion a quite poor statement, since it completely comes down to the subjective jugdement, concerning first of all, what "good movies" are, and second what a top 250 movie list should include. However I do agree with you at some point that, some of the movies in the top 250 list is (In my opinion), either overrated or underrated, but this does not make the list completely useless, since you can always "judge" the movies on your own.
And btw. thanks for the link, just looked it up, seems interesting, especially that it also includes top directors.
I