Can we trust the IMDB?
Dziadsj
I had thought it was lost.
I'm taking the review with a grain of salt knowing how the Golem films always
seem to get mixed up with misinformation.
Comments?
Steve
JMozart17561791
point,but never as an entire means of research.
Best Wishes,
James
James Russell
>There's a posted review of the 1917 Golem and the Dancing Girl on the IMDB.
>I had thought it was lost.
The IMDB contains a number of reviews of lost films. The author, the
implausibly named F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre, seems to be responsible for the
majority of them, although the "lost" films are mixed with a number of
evidently extant ones in his list of reviews. As far as I can see, his
"Convention City" review is the only one to note the film is no longer known
to exist; all the others prattle on as if he'd seen the film in question
(oddly enough he has no review of "LAM"). I remember there being a thread
about the tedious arsehead here just a few days ago...
James R.
--
Hot Buttered Death http://www.ans.com.au/~jgwr/blog/
Celluloid Dreams: Wednesday, 8pm AEST, 2SER 107.3 FM http://www.2ser.com/
Rev. J. Toad
wrote:
>The IMDB contains a number of reviews of lost films. The author, the
>implausibly named F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre, seems to be responsible for the
>majority of them, although the "lost" films are mixed with a number of
>evidently extant ones in his list of reviews. As far as I can see, his
>"Convention City" review is the only one to note the film is no longer known
>to exist; all the others prattle on as if he'd seen the film in question
>(oddly enough he has no review of "LAM"). I remember there being a thread
>about the tedious arsehead here just a few days ago...
Maybe he's a dweller of a near future where they've discovered time
travel, and he's gone back to see them in their original theatrical
releases. Be nice if he'd take along a hidden video cam for the rest
of us. Or maybe he's a visitor from a separate quantum timeline where
the films survived.
I've been up for a long time.
------------------------------------------------
"It is a tribute to the American people that our
leaders perceived that they had to lie to us. It
is not a tribute to us that we were so easily
misled."
-Daniel Ellsberg, The Pentagon Papers
------------------------------------------------
Robert Lipton
Rev. J. Toad wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:30:54 GMT, jg...@yahoo.com (James Russell)
> wrote:
>
>
>>The IMDB contains a number of reviews of lost films. The author, the
>>implausibly named F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre, seems to be responsible for the
>>majority of them, although the "lost" films are mixed with a number of
>>evidently extant ones in his list of reviews. As far as I can see, his
>>"Convention City" review is the only one to note the film is no longer known
>>to exist; all the others prattle on as if he'd seen the film in question
>>(oddly enough he has no review of "LAM"). I remember there being a thread
>>about the tedious arsehead here just a few days ago...
>>
>
> Maybe he's a dweller of a near future where they've discovered time
> travel, and he's gone back to see them in their original theatrical
> releases. Be nice if he'd take along a hidden video cam for the rest
> of us. Or maybe he's a visitor from a separate quantum timeline where
> the films survived.
>
I've seen Mr. McIntyre at the Film Forum in New York. Sometimes we wind
up commenting on the same film at the IMDB because, while I rarely add
comments on a film with existing sensible reviews, when you see a film
at the same show as someone else and go home to write a review, you wind
up posting about the same time. We've both posted reviews of YOU'D BE
SURPRISED, THE HAPPY HOTTENTOTS and Leon Erroll's SERVICE WITH A SMILE.
Mr. McIntyre's reviews strike me as well written and having something
to say about the background of a film.
I don't know about CONVENTION CITY. I do know that the IMDB often
lacks titles, particularly among the shorts. I've been hitting the
Amierican Mutuscope & Biograph films at the LOC cache on the Internet,
and the IMDB has almost none of those listed, although they're pretty
good on Edisons of the era. Not a single one of the shorts in the last
Vitaphone Project show showed up on IMDB.com and I've seen the 1937
HOLLYWOOD PARTY three times on TCM, and it's still missing from the
Internet Movie Database. Well, they're obscure. Perhaps Mr. McIntyre
misremembered or saw some other movie called CONVENTION CITY.
I also keep adding information to the Internet Movie Database -- Bud
Jamison is not listed in several of the Harold Lloyd shorts in which he
appears. Again, as I say, the IMDB is not perfect, but it is a great
step forward in having information at hand, even if the people who rate
the films are insane (check out THE CONQUEROR).
Bob
Jim Beaver
"Dziadsj" <dzi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021015041821...@mb-df.aol.com...
Your confusing "review" with "plot synopsis," I think. As one who has
submitted plot synopses for many lost films to the IMDb, I believe it is
incumbent on me (or someone) to provide some sense of what the storyline of
a film is, even if (in fact, especially if) the film can no longer be seen.
From publicity material, reviews, and other documents contemporaneous with
the film, I've supplied a lot of storylines for films I haven't seen because
they haven't existed in my lifetime. Yet a week doesn't go by that someone
doesn't email me to find out where I saw something I had "reviewed." IMDb
makes a distinction between "plot summary" and a review ("user comment" or
"user rating"). I don't write reviews of films I haven't seen. I write
lots of plot summaries for films neither I nor anyone else living has seen.
Jim Beaver
Dziadsj
>confusing "review" with "plot synopsis,"
I'll keep that in mind when using the IMDB but in this particular case the
poster states:
"The editing and shot-matching are poor. I recommend this movie as a curiosity
only; anyone who thinks it's a horror movie will be (as I was) disappointed.
I'll rate it 3 points out of 10, or maybe 4 out of respect for Wegener's other
film work."
That leads me to think that they're claiming they saw it.
BTW, I think posting plot synopsis for lost films is a great idea. But
somewhere in the write up, it ought to say that's what it is to avoid
confusion.
Steve
Max Nineteennineteen
I notice that Marooned Souls is missing, too.
Jim Beaver
>
> >confusing "review" with "plot synopsis,"
>
> I'll keep that in mind when using the IMDB but in this particular case the
> poster states:
>
> "The editing and shot-matching are poor. I recommend this movie as a
curiosity
> only; anyone who thinks it's a horror movie will be (as I was)
disappointed.
> I'll rate it 3 points out of 10, or maybe 4 out of respect for Wegener's
other
> film work."
>
> That leads me to think that they're claiming they saw it.
That's what it would lead me to think, as well.
Jim Beaver
Glamour Studios
MacIntyre (from Wales, yet!) strikes again. This idiot has been posting fake
comments on lost films for some time now, we have outed several of his "reviews"
here. The tip-off to me is that his name "Gwynplaine" is in fact the name of
Conrad Veidt's character in "The Man Who Laughs". GET IT?
Archie Waugh
Glamour Studios
plot synopsis. This guy plainly lies all the time about films he has not seen.
Archie Waugh
Steven Rowe
writes:
>I don't know about CONVENTION CITY.
wasnt Convention City lost in the middle to late 1950s?
maybe he saw it prior to that....
heck even early superbowls are lost ----
steven rowe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Don't forget to Delete "Unspam" if you wish to e- mail me.
join the FelixTheCat list at www.yahoogroups.com
.
Bruce Calvert
<20021015220840...@mb-fq.aol.com>, Steven Rowe stated...
>
>In article <3DAC0859...@nyc.rr.com>, Robert Lipton <bobl...@nyc.rr.com>
>writes:
>
>>I don't know about CONVENTION CITY.
>
>wasnt Convention City lost in the middle to late 1950s?
> maybe he saw it prior to that....
>
>heck even early superbowls are lost ----
The television broadcast of Super Bowl I (#1) is lost, but NFL Films recorded
the game. I don't know if a film exists of the entire game, but they certainly
released a film of the highlights.
Bruce Calvert
(remove the xspam to reply)
Visit the Silent Film Still Archive
http://home.attbi.com/~silentfilm
Tony Spadaro
cares to sign up - it's sort of like those "polls" where you can call a 900
number, only they don't even have the money maker. The IMDb has got a lot of
stuff and it's great for quick reference, but verify before you believe, and
you will be a happier person.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Dziadsj" <dzi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021015041821...@mb-df.aol.com...
Tommie Hicks, Jr.
research tool for newbies. Plus it should be an internet record of
film and TV. I found many errors which I consciencously notified them
of (Snub and Daphne Pollard as siblings for instance) but they
corrected very few. I wish there was a way you could credit a
researcher for a title submitted. I know of a couple of silent film
comedy researchers who spent the car payment money to obtain press
kits and old trade magazines to glean titles that had eluded the LOC,
and it would be very uncouth to submit the titles they found without
being able to credit them.
It seems to be a vehicle for internet ads instead of research.
Tommie Hicks.
max...@yahoo.com (Max Nineteennineteen) wrote in message news:<aa2a3f47.02101...@posting.google.com>...
eldorado
"Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote in message
news:B0Xq9.1871$a01...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
I, too, have supplied the IMDb with numerous plot summaries -- exactly fifty
(50), at last count. However, my summaries are restricted to films I've
actually seen. I don't know how anyone can justly write a summary --
including commentary on the film's strengths and weaknesses -- without
having actually seen it.
When reviewing a true rarity -- "The Ups and Downs of a Handyma" (1975)
comes to mind -- it is necessary to not only have seen the film, but also to
have a VHS or DVD version of it, to refer to. It's just not cricket to dash
off an opinion of a once-seen movie as a "review" or a "plot summary." How
do you know what you remember is accurate?
Dan N.
Jim Beaver
"eldorado" <eldo...@vcoms.net> wrote in message
news:aoofkj$1fj4$1...@madmax.keyway.net...
As I said, I would never comment on a film's strengths or weaknesses without
having seen it. Are you saying you would not want the IMDb to tell you,
without comment, what the plotline of LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT is? The
pressbooks and attendant publicity material for most early films included a
detailed plot synopsis, usually even giving away the ending. I never give
away endings, but if I run across the studio synopsis of a lost film, I'm
certainly going to employ it (in concert with other resources) to tell
people what the story is about. One of the reasons I've seen so many
wonderful older films is because I was given an idea of what the storyline
was and thus sought it out. I make no comment, express no opinion in my
plot summaries. But it seems foolish and anti-scholarly to have the
information on the subject matter of a lost film and not place it into a
usable source. One could almost follow your logic to the point of saying no
one should read a plot synopsis until they've seen the film!
>
> When reviewing a true rarity -- "The Ups and Downs of a Handyma" (1975)
> comes to mind -- it is necessary to not only have seen the film, but also
to
> have a VHS or DVD version of it, to refer to. It's just not cricket to
dash
> off an opinion of a once-seen movie as a "review" or a "plot summary."
How
> do you know what you remember is accurate?
Not cricket? I don't understand. If I watch a "true rarity" and want to
write a summary or even a review (you keep calling a plot summary an
"opinion"--it isn't, at least not the way I write them), are you saying I
have to RE-watch it before I can summarize it or comment on it accurately?
Or are you saying that it's not cricket to opine over a film one hasn't seen
RECENTLY? By "once-seen movie," do you mean a movie one has seen only one
time, or do you mean a movie one saw once, long ago? If the former, I beg
to differ. If the latter, mileage varies. I couldn't write a review or a
summary of DR. TERROR'S HOUSE OF HORRORS if you put a gun to my head--it's
been too long. But I could do a good job on DRACULA or CHINATOWN easily,
and I haven't seen either of those in a decade or two. (I can practically
recite them.) So it's not, from my viewpoint, an absolute.
My biggest difference with your position is your continued conflation of
"opinion/commentary" with "plot summary." I do not consider the two to be
remotely similar, and I do an excellent job of leaving my opinion out of my
IMDb plot summaries, primarily because the IMDb and I concur that a plot
summary is the wrong place for opinion. It disturbs me to find plot
summaries that say such as "Ineffective story of a man who...." or "Another
hack job from...". There are other places for opinions on the IMDb. And I
am delighted to find a concise description of the plotline for a movie I
haven't seen, and even moreso for a movie I CAN'T see. And I'm pleased to
have provided many of both kinds.
I would like to know whether other people share Dan's specific opinion that
a plot summary can justly be written only by someone who has seen the film?
If pressbooks, publicity, oral histories, and contemporaneous reviews
expressly describe the plotline of a lost film, should that information be
disregarded and the film itself be the only acceptable source of knowledge
for what the movie is about?
I suspect I know Frank Thompson's answer!
Jim Beaver
FThomp1065
>I would like to know whether other people share Dan's specific opinion that a
plot summary can justly be written only by someone who has seen the film? If
pressbooks, publicity, oral histories, and contemporaneous reviews expressly
describe the plotline of a lost film, should that information be disregarded
and the film itself be the only acceptable source of knowledge for what the
movie is about?
>
>I suspect I know Frank Thompson's answer!
And you suspect right, I suspect. If I couldn't present synopses of films I
hadn't seen, I could never have written "Lost Films" and that book couldn't
have zoomed to the top of every best seller list on earth and I couldn't be
living in the subsequent luxury that descended upon me as a result of "Lost
Films'" almost unbelieveable success. Golly, that was a big break for me.
The incredibly wealthy, successful and esteemed Frank Thompson, who owes it all
to "Lost Films" and the fine, fine folks at Citadel. Especially the guy who
designed that enticing cover!
>
Jim Beaver
"FThomp1065" <fthom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021018214034...@mb-dh.aol.com...
Can you let me have five bucks till payday?
Jim Beaver
FThomp1065
>
>Jim Beaver
Hey, with my next "Lost Films" royalty check, I'll buy you a new car! There's
plenty for everybody!
Frank Thompson, who's also made several million dollars from "The Star Film
Ranch" and "Texas Hollywood"
Bruce Calvert
<20021019134153...@mb-fi.aol.com>, FThomp1065 stated...
>Hey, with my next "Lost Films" royalty check, I'll buy you a new car! There's
>plenty for everybody!
O.K., but I prefre Hot Wheels over Matchbox...