- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 62,002
- Reaction score
- 26,801
I noticed this because, oddly, the rigged "critic" *cough* corporate film executive *cough* websites hadn't turned out any end-of-the-decade lists for their films. The "Best Films of the Decade" list Metacritic produced at the end of 2009 is one of the finest lists, ever. This was back before it was co-opted by the major studios as a mouthpiece for corporate marketing; back when the list of critics who contributed had actually earned their stripes as critics. I don't expect a list today to be better than garbage with a bunch of SJW bloggers polled, but I hold out hope.
So in my boredom I turned to IMDb's Advanced Search Feature. That's how I found this film:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5813916/?ref_=adv_li_tt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain_2
Dag II (aka The Mountain II)
That's also when I realized: this film has a score of 8.9 with 104K votes, but it's nowhere to be seen on the venerated Top 250.
As I've explained in the past, IMDb uses a Bayesian weighting equation to stabilize outliers. I don't mind this. In fact, I fully agree with it. It's quite sensible. While sample sizes are great in controlled polls, you have no such control on IMDb. So the weighting equation is a way of reeling in movies with smaller pools of votes that are wildly overrated by niche populations.
How does IMDb's rating system work?
Yet that doesn't explain why this film doesn't show up on the Top 250. I know this because not only does it have more than enough votes to meet the minimum, but even without having access to the mean vote across the whole report, I can see films on the Top 250 with fewer votes, and a lower vote score. Here's an example from the very same year:
The Handmaiden (2016) [#223 on Top 250]
This movie scores 8.1, and has only 100K votes. There is no mathematically possible way for the Bayesian equation above, if unmanipulated, to place this film on the list, but not Dag II.
Furthermore, no, these aren't the unweighted scores. In fact, if you go to the vote breakdown pages, you'll see that the actual mean for Dag II is an astonishing 9.4. Meanwhile, for The Handmaiden, it's still just an 8.1:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5813916/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4016934/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt
The only possible explanation should jump out at you right away. Dag II is probably one of the Top 10 rated movies in history, or close to it, but only by non-US users. Of those registered IMDb users who share their location, non-US users averaged 8.6. US users averaged a mediocre 6.8. IMDB "Top 1000" voters averaged a very poor 5.6. IMDb has imposed some additional mathematical weighting that punishes a film which doesn't perform well in the US, or at least that don't perform well both inside the US and outside the US.
I don't give a fuck if Americans don't understand or appreciate a film. Jay Leno only has to walk down an LA street for a few hours to find more than a dozen of my compatriots who are so fucking dumb they don't even recognize their own Vice President. Hell, I don't even care that much if nearly every vote from the non-US crowd are from a single country (like Turkey). Even if a work of art will only be appreciated by its immediate culture, when it has that level of appreciation with that many votes, you recognize this greatness. It doesn't have to speak to the whole human race. The whole human race may not get it. They lack the grammar. Many of the greatest films from our own culture made just 60-70 years ago aren't appreciated by us.
Because how the hell is it supposed to get greater exposure if it's been deprived the chance based on a few thousand Americans who are possibly nitwits? It's only through that exposure that more people outside Turkey will see it, vote for it, and then perhaps drop the rating from a lack of universal appeal.
This is provincialist bullshit, IMDb.
Alright, the silver lining. Google informs you can currently watch this for free on Tubi. I'm going to watch the first film first, but I think it deserves a look:
https://tubitv.com/movies/525069/the_mountain_ii?start=true
So in my boredom I turned to IMDb's Advanced Search Feature. That's how I found this film:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5813916/?ref_=adv_li_tt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain_2
Dag II (aka The Mountain II)
IMDB said:
That's also when I realized: this film has a score of 8.9 with 104K votes, but it's nowhere to be seen on the venerated Top 250.
As I've explained in the past, IMDb uses a Bayesian weighting equation to stabilize outliers. I don't mind this. In fact, I fully agree with it. It's quite sensible. While sample sizes are great in controlled polls, you have no such control on IMDb. So the weighting equation is a way of reeling in movies with smaller pools of votes that are wildly overrated by niche populations.
How does IMDb's rating system work?
Quora said:
Yet that doesn't explain why this film doesn't show up on the Top 250. I know this because not only does it have more than enough votes to meet the minimum, but even without having access to the mean vote across the whole report, I can see films on the Top 250 with fewer votes, and a lower vote score. Here's an example from the very same year:
The Handmaiden (2016) [#223 on Top 250]
This movie scores 8.1, and has only 100K votes. There is no mathematically possible way for the Bayesian equation above, if unmanipulated, to place this film on the list, but not Dag II.
Furthermore, no, these aren't the unweighted scores. In fact, if you go to the vote breakdown pages, you'll see that the actual mean for Dag II is an astonishing 9.4. Meanwhile, for The Handmaiden, it's still just an 8.1:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5813916/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4016934/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt
The only possible explanation should jump out at you right away. Dag II is probably one of the Top 10 rated movies in history, or close to it, but only by non-US users. Of those registered IMDb users who share their location, non-US users averaged 8.6. US users averaged a mediocre 6.8. IMDB "Top 1000" voters averaged a very poor 5.6. IMDb has imposed some additional mathematical weighting that punishes a film which doesn't perform well in the US, or at least that don't perform well both inside the US and outside the US.
I don't give a fuck if Americans don't understand or appreciate a film. Jay Leno only has to walk down an LA street for a few hours to find more than a dozen of my compatriots who are so fucking dumb they don't even recognize their own Vice President. Hell, I don't even care that much if nearly every vote from the non-US crowd are from a single country (like Turkey). Even if a work of art will only be appreciated by its immediate culture, when it has that level of appreciation with that many votes, you recognize this greatness. It doesn't have to speak to the whole human race. The whole human race may not get it. They lack the grammar. Many of the greatest films from our own culture made just 60-70 years ago aren't appreciated by us.
Because how the hell is it supposed to get greater exposure if it's been deprived the chance based on a few thousand Americans who are possibly nitwits? It's only through that exposure that more people outside Turkey will see it, vote for it, and then perhaps drop the rating from a lack of universal appeal.
This is provincialist bullshit, IMDb.
Alright, the silver lining. Google informs you can currently watch this for free on Tubi. I'm going to watch the first film first, but I think it deserves a look:
https://tubitv.com/movies/525069/the_mountain_ii?start=true
