The gap of generations

The Top 250 of IMDb is a regular follow-up to get suggests for good movies. I was recently reviewing them and noticed something peculiar. There seems to be an extraordinary number of movies after the year 2000 to have made it to the Top 250. Till about 4-5 years back the ratings were very well distributed across various decades and even genres. The genre distribution is more subtle to notice though.

It does have seem to have skipped me how so many "good" movies were released in the last few years. I never even watched many of these or did not bother to after watching their trailers.

What disappoints me the most is that it makes all the really well made movies slip down the charts and slowly move out of them altogether. Since most raters these days have barely watched any of these movies and would not care to the justification of why these movies should be removed from the list beats me. Ratings are very personalized and one cannot truely compare the quality of the different ratings for the same movie. For instance, some users may tend to rate even the movies they dislike with the overall averages. Most importantly, given that users have no knowledge or any inkling about what they are ranking down, its just not fair to do so. If we were to truly establish the quality of a movie it must only be done if watch a substantial number of the others we are implicitly giving the thumbs down to.

There can be reasonable statistical features incorporated which can reduce this bias but the best approach would be to release a list endorsed by body of film critics, buffs and organizations. A user list can be kept separate. The problem arises when a database like IMDb becomes an authority but relies on such dubious mechanisms as user ratings to establish worth.

The underlying problem of course is the gap of generations which means that since we would never entirely understand the scenarios, cultures and lifestyles of people a few decades prior we cannot expect to express a unbiased opinion on them. Star Trek fans who are avid followers of the series despise the Star Trek movie where as the uninitiated love it for the action and drama. Only folowers of Star Trek series can judge the resemblence to the original and correctness of not only fact, but significance paid to characters and plots. Non followers would rate is as jsut another movie but followers know the benchmark and what it needs to stand for and how tall.

Several of the old movies are pictured in the backdrop of major political and social events that shaped the world and are also excellent masterpieces of acting, presentation, ingenuity and plots. Old actors are still known for their legendary one liners, trademark expressions and costumes. The whole task of movie making seemed to be much more involved and creative not just in one or two dimensions. There is much to learn about the times gone by from these movies. One's knowledge and general awareness increases several fold by just watching and reading about these movies. Unlike newer movies which are a race against time to get as much sensory appeal as possible. There are several more arguments we can make here as to why the oldies are so important.

The obvious consequence is that new movie buffs would never be informed of these movies and they would probably get lost with time. People will never realise or get to appreciate and witness great pieces of art and movie making. Forums and databases like IMDb must think about this.