|Home - Hal and Dee at the Movies||Mail Hal C F Astell - Site Map|
Change in the IMDb Top 250
If you're used to this data and just want to look at the current year's grab, here's 2019.
When I moved to the US in 2004, I wasn't allowed to work until the government gave me permission. That took six months to grant and I took advantage of the free time to delve into classic film courtesy of the newfound wonder (to me) of cable television and Turner Classic Movies. While I watched as much as I could generally, I also tried to have some focus to ensure I was finding an appropriate grounding.
There are many lists of 'the greatest films of all time'. I maintain archived copies of a bunch of Top 100 Lists here at Dawtrina.com, for example, and there are plenty of others out there to play with. These are generally static lists, created by a single person or a focused group of people, and that's fine. However, there's another list that's been around for a long while that is constantly updated and it's voted for by the largest audience of film fans there is: people who frequent the Internet Movie Database.
The IMDb Top 250 is a fascinating, albeit flawed, creature and I grabbed a static copy sometime in mid-2004 to work through. I've kept that up over the years, though I've never managed to watch everything on the list. For a while, I was hovering between the 200 and 210 mark, though I'm a little lower now, in the high 170s.
IMDb do attempt to ensure a strong list by applying rules and algorithms to get weighted ratings. They don't disclose all the details of how they do this, but the core formula is below (source here):
The following formula is used to calculate the Top Rated 250 titles. This formula provides a true 'Bayesian estimate', which takes into account the number of votes each title has received, minimum votes required to be on the list, and the mean vote for all titles:
weighted rating (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C
Please be aware that the Top Rated Movies Chart only includes theatrical features: shorts, TV movies, miniseries and documentaries are not included in the Top Rated Movies Chart. The Top Rated TV Shows Chart includes TV Series, but not TV episodes or Movies.
Put simply, they filter down to theatrical features that have received a certain number of votes (I can't find the current threshold but it used to be 25,000), then reject what appears to be bad data. They do a pretty good job.
Some flaws are still obvious, of course. This is based on popular voting, so it's open to the tyranny of the majority. It's not too surprising to find a strong bias towards recent pictures, especially big Hollywood blockbusters which leap into the list on release and then slowly (or quickly) drop back out again.
What I found over time, though, is that it holds up pretty well, with my average rating for the IMDb Top 250 higher than that for the AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list. From an entirely personal and an 80%-ish complete standpoint, the IMDb list is 'better' than the AFI's (and, to a varying degree of completion, the other few dozen lists I'm tracking). That still seems odd to me, but data doesn't lie.
So, in order to keep an eye on this data, I started grabbing a fresh copy of the IMDb Top 250 every New Years Day, starting in 2013. That allows me to see how that data changes annually. I'm sharing that data on pages here for wider reference:
Here's a summary table:
Here's what these data elements mean.
The mean, median and mode are ways of calculating averages.
The mean is what most people would call the average. It's calculated by adding up all 250 values and dividing by 250.
When all 250 values are sorted in order, the median is the value in the middle. In other words, there as many films in the list newer than 1993 as there are older than 1993.
The mode is the most frequently represented value. In other words, according to this list, 1995 is currently cinema's golden year.
The Hal and Dee numbers represent how many of the 250 films my better half and I have rated (which means we've seen them since 2004) and the mean of our ratings. My rating system ranges from 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest).
The rest of the elements reflect change since the previous year:
Same is the number of films which stayed in the same spot as the previous year. Up is the number that moved up. Down is the number that moved down. New are the number of films in this year's list that weren't in the previous year's — however, some of them may have been in the list prior to that.
Variation marks how much the list has changed overall over the previous year. It counts how many places in the list each film moved (either up or down) and calculates the mean of that.
The change in mean tells us is that the films represented in the IMDb Top 250 get newer each year. That's not surprising as new movies are released all the time. The median ought to get newer too, and it is doing that over time, but it seems to get stuck a lot. It spent three years at 1988 and it's now spent three years at 1993.
The mode is interesting. Cinema's golden year, according to this list, is 1995 and has been for the last six years. It's represented by eight films, which means that it's only just holding on from 2014 and world cinema's greatest year of 1957, each of which has seven. That latter is especially telling because no other year from the last millennium has over five. Hollywood's golden year, according to the history books, is 1939, but that's only represented by three films here.
Our ratings suggest that my wife and I both prefer the oldest list that I grabbed in 2004 and it's gradually become a little less valuable to us since then. However, the drop in the last year is notable: after a 6.67 in 2004, my average ratings dropped about a tenth of a point and stayed there from 2013 to 2018, varying just a little, but they dropped to a new low of 6.52 in 2019. That's a big drop and I believe that robs it of the crown of most valuable list (to me) that it's held ever since I started tracking it.
It's perhaps also worth mentioning that my better half generally rates film higher than I do, but my ratings of IMDb Top 250 films have always been higher than hers. I've wondered about that, but, looking wider, it seems that I rate both higher and lower than her, praising or panning, while her ratings clump a little more in the middle.
Ups and Downs
Unsurprisingly, the up and down numbers suggest that a lot more films drop every year than rise. This is surely because, while some films do move up the list, it's much more common for them to be moved down by new entries, which also often move down too, even faster.
Of the top ten movers over the last year, only two of them rose (Dead Poets Society nineteen places and The Truman Show twenty. However, fourteen films dropped at least that many places, seven them falling out of the Top 250 entirely in the process. The biggest loser this year was Blade Runner 2049, which was 81st in last year's list but was gone entirely from this year's.
The variation is the most interesting number for me at the moment. While IMDb have changed their formula over the years, that's clearly made the list settle somewhat. In 2016 I said that, 'Each of the last three years has seen less change in the list and the amount of change has almost halved in two years.' It's now down to a new low in variation: the average film only moved 4.7 places.
Given that each new year brings new great films, we might expect previous decades to be represented less and less over time and that's generally true. There were fourteen new entries this year and a total of 114 over the past six, though the vaguaries of time mean that some films count more than once to that total. With each year that passes, the 2010s is more represented and it's up to 41 films in this year's list. That's 41 places no longer taken by films from previous decades.
What's odd to me is which decades aren't shrinking. Most of them are, of course. Time has chipped away at the 1940s every year and it's now represented by half as many films as it was in 2004, down from 24 to 12. The fifties are down, the sixties are down, even the seventies are down, but the eighties aren't, holding strong at 32, which was how many it had in the 2004 list.
Even more interestingly, the oldest decades on the list are faring better than the most recent ones. While the thirties dropped in representation between 2004 and 2014 from 18 to 7, it hasn't changed at all since. What's more, the twenties has actually been increasing its share of the Top 250. From 2004 to 2014, it dropped from seven films to four, but it's gradually crept back up to seven since then, albeit not with the same titles. Out have gone Nosferatu and Battleship Potemkin, while in have come The Kid and, this year, Sherlock, Jr.
Back in 2004, 152 directors (or directing partnerships) were represented in the Top 250. The most frequent name was Alfred Hitchcock, with nine films in the list, and Stanley Kubrick was nipping at his heels with eight. Most of the frequent directors were from the classic era, including Billy Wilder with six; Akira Kurosawa and Howard Hawks with five; and Ingmar Bergman, Frank Capra, Charles Chaplin and John Ford all with four. Of more recent names, Steven Spielberg had six while Francis Ford Coppola and Quentin Tarantino had four each.
That breakdown is just as varied in 2019 but it's shifted notably newer. Now, there are 153 separate names, but the top names are now mostly new. Nobody has more than seven films in the list, but three of the four that do are still making films today: Christopher Nolan, Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg. Their older peer is Stanley Kubrick, as Hitchcock is down to six, sharing that rank with Akira Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki.
The Top Ten
One interesting note is that the top ten today is almost unchanged from 2013. It's comprised of the same ten films, just in a slightly different order, The Dark Knight gradually shifting upwards and Pulp Fiction gradually shifting downwards.
However, it's notably different from 2004. For a start, the top spot is different, The Shawshank Redemption taking over from The Godfather somewhere in between 2004 and 2013. What's more, only half of the films in the last decade's list were there in 2004. The Dark Knight, of course, has an excuse, not being released until 2008, but Pulp Fiction was in 16th place, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly 20th, 12 Angry Men 21st and Fight Club way down in 41st.
Last update: 1st January, 2019