• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

The 50,000 Movie Challenge

CJ121997

Well-known member
Messages
149
Reaction score
3
Trophy Points
18
Here are the newly assigned numbers to films for this week:

52987 Respect
53011 Lansky
53021 Night Of The Sicario
53030 Billie Eilish: The World's A Little Blurry
53086 At Last
53087 Spirit Untamed

Only dooming 6 from rising 13. The quantity is not worth surprising for me. The series of low-numbered bulletins reminds me of these in the 70s and 80s.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
Movieman53000 said:
Here is another one That is Listed with the Wong Release Year

The Magnificent Butcher (1979) #39732 Listed with Year (2003) It may have another Number. It's Not Listed on AFI. Need to if you can find somewhere to see if has a original release Number. It may or may not have another Number. It was released in Hong Kong in Dec 1979

I don't think it's listed with the wrong year. Yes, the film was originally released in Hong Kong in 1979, but the 2003 the film is listed with is most likely when CARA viewed and rated the film. Also, like the previous Hong Kong film you posted about, this film was also released on DVD by Fortune Star/20th Century Fox. And to add to this, the 1992 Hong Kong film Naked Killer is also listed with a 2003 date on filmratings. And it was also released on DVD from Fortune Star/20th Century Fox. I bet if you looked up all the Hong Kong movies that were released on DVD by Fortune Star/20th Century Fox you'd find that their Hong Kong release dates didn't match up with the release dates listed on filmratings. This is likely because the film wasn't rated by CARA until these films were released on DVD in North America.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
CJ121997 said:
I found three NR films with numbers, all of which are from Cannon Movie Tales film series.

28358 Hansel and Gretel
28360 Snow White
28427 The Frog Prince

According to the IMDB Snow White (1987) is #41759. This is listed as a video rating. However, this listing does not show up on filmratings.
 

CJ121997

Well-known member
Messages
149
Reaction score
3
Trophy Points
18
Frantic Canadian said:
CJ121997 said:
I found three NR films with numbers, all of which are from Cannon Movie Tales film series.

28358 Hansel and Gretel
28360 Snow White
28427 The Frog Prince

According to the IMDB Snow White (1987) is #41759. This is listed as a video rating. However, this listing does not show up on filmratings.

I saw the credits yesterday, that film is #28360. #41759 refers to its re-release on DVD for home video.
 

MPAA Challenger

Active member
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
11
Frantic Canadian said:
CJ121997 said:
I found three NR films with numbers, all of which are from Cannon Movie Tales film series.

28358 Hansel and Gretel
28360 Snow White
28427 The Frog Prince

According to the IMDB Snow White (1987) is #41759. This is listed as a video rating. However, this listing does not show up on filmratings.

According to IMDb === according to yours truly. That was my handywork, and don't think I'm not thorough and meticulous to the max.

https://www.filmratings.com/Search?filmTitle=snow+white

The only "Snow White" released by "MGM Home Video" in 2005 I found is that one, and the exact same PG rating for "Some Scary Images" is stamped on the DVD's back cover:

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/pgIAAOSw2GhgHw9-/s-l1600.jpg

So once I checked everything coincided in a perfect fit, I submitted it and became official IMDb scripture.

I didn't suspect that the film in question had a previous MPA certificate in the original end credits, so good find, @"CJ121997"
 

MPAA Challenger

Active member
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
11
Unbelievable. Some moron had submitted that PG rating, and its certificate number #41759, to a different 2005 "Snow White":

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434345/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg#certification

A movie for adults full of sex and drugs. Rated PG. Great conclusion, Sherlock.

To add insult to injury, I already deleted that erroneous rating a year ago, when I added it to the right 1987 "Snow White", and now somebody has put it up again, so I just submitted a new deletion request. It won't last long, and let's hope this time no moron insists on the same error once again.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
CJ121997 said:
Frantic Canadian said:
CJ121997 said:
I found three NR films with numbers, all of which are from Cannon Movie Tales film series.

28358 Hansel and Gretel
28360 Snow White
28427 The Frog Prince

According to the IMDB Snow White (1987) is #41759. This is listed as a video rating. However, this listing does not show up on filmratings.

#41759 refers to its re-release on DVD for home video.

You're just repeating what I said above. lol
 

CJ121997

Well-known member
Messages
149
Reaction score
3
Trophy Points
18
MPAA Challenger said:
Unbelievable. Some moron had submitted that PG rating, and its certificate number #41759, to a different 2005 "Snow White":

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434345/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg#certification

A movie for adults full of sex and drugs. Rated PG. Great conclusion, Sherlock.

To add insult to injury, I already deleted that erroneous rating a year ago, when I added it to the right 1987 "Snow White", and now somebody has put it up again, so I just submitted a new deletion request. It won't last long, and let's hope this time no moron insists on the same error once again.

Maybe someone didn't check the distributor of the film before submission. Checking it would identify the title with the rating year clearly, so I usually did.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
Found another double on filmratings. Number 28606 is listed for both "Dragonard" and the 1984 re-release of the 1966 Hitchcock film "Torn Curtain". It's impossible for that number to have been assigned to Torn Curtain's re-release, or re-rating, in 1984. It's about a thousand numbers off. I found a Spanish dub of Dragonard on YouTube and checked the credits and the number listed is in fact 28606.
 

CJ121997

Well-known member
Messages
149
Reaction score
3
Trophy Points
18
Frantic Canadian said:
Found another double on filmratings. Number 28606 is listed for both "Dragonard" and the 1984 re-release of the 1966 Hitchcock film "Torn Curtain". It's impossible for that number to have been assigned to Torn Curtain's re-release, or re-rating, in 1984.

Must be a typo and it should be in the 27,000s range. Perhaps they mean that film #27606?
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
CJ121997 said:
Frantic Canadian said:
Found another double on filmratings. Number 28606 is listed for both "Dragonard" and the 1984 re-release of the 1966 Hitchcock film "Torn Curtain". It's impossible for that number to have been assigned to Torn Curtain's re-release, or re-rating, in 1984.

Must be a typo and it should be in the 27,000s range. Perhaps they mean that film #27606?

That's what I'm thinking. I checked my list and I don't have anything for #27606 but I also can't find any source to confirm that it could be #27606.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
I've got some movies here that I was wondering if anybody can confirm their numbers?

Iron Eagle II (1988)(listed as rated PG on filmratings but no certificate number given)
Out Of Order (1985)(listed as rated PG on filmratings but no certificate number given)
The Seduders (1985)(listed as rated R on filmratings with certificate #239)
The Silent One (1985)(listed as rated PG on filmratings but no certificate number given)
Troll (1985)(listed as rated PG-13 on filmratings but no certificate number given)

There's also:

Screen Test (1985)(listed as rated R on filmratings with certificate #1815)

I have a copy of this one but unfortunately there is no number, or even MPAA logo, during the opening or closing credits.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
Just found another NOT RATED film with a number thanks to VVS's official YouTube channel.

I.T. is #50478.


This now leaves us with 22 missing numbers for the 50,000's.
 

CJ121997

Well-known member
Messages
149
Reaction score
3
Trophy Points
18
Frantic Canadian said:
I've got some movies here that I was wondering if anybody can confirm their numbers?

Iron Eagle II (1988)(listed as rated PG on filmratings but no certificate number given)
Out Of Order (1985)(listed as rated PG on filmratings but no certificate number given)
The Seduders (1985)(listed as rated R on filmratings with certificate #239)
The Silent One (1985)(listed as rated PG on filmratings but no certificate number given)
Troll (1985)(listed as rated PG-13 on filmratings but no certificate number given)

There's also:

Screen Test (1985)(listed as rated R on filmratings with certificate #1815)

I have a copy of this one but unfortunately there is no number, or even MPAA logo, during the opening or closing credits.
Iron Eagle II is #29128. I put Out of Order, The Silent One and Troll on the list called "Films with no number".

The problem is, there is no complete database for all films with numbers assigned available online, rated or NR, so we can't determine the films without numbers.
 

MPAA Challenger

Active member
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
11
Frantic Canadian said:
The Seducers (1985) (listed as rated R on filmratings with certificate #239)
Screen Test (1985)(listed as rated R on filmratings with certificate #1815)

What's the problem with those numbers?

And it's either The Seducers (1962):
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056462

or The Seducers (1969):
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063707

The former is distributed by the same company mentioned in filmratings (Joseph Brenner Associates), and the latter was rated X in 1969, according to its U.S. poster (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063707/mediaviewer/rm2057954304/), which would fit perfectly with a number like #239, and could have been re-rated R in 1985 keeping the same number.

As usual with some of these obscure, long-forgotten films, digging up reliable information is a chore.

Editing as we go:
I found this piece of info:
https://thenewbev.com/blog/2017/09/absolutely-mr-brenner-positively-mr-gross/

"Top Sensation aka The Seducers, which Brenner recut and would reissue in 1985."

So definitely the second one.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
MPAA Challenger said:
Frantic Canadian said:
Troll (1985)(listed as rated PG-13 on filmratings but no certificate number given)

27990 on the end credits.

Then we've got a problem, because according to filmratings that number was given to "The Trip To Bountiful".
 
MPAA Challenger said:
Frantic Canadian said:
The Seducers (1985) (listed as rated R on filmratings with certificate #239)
Screen Test (1985)(listed as rated R on filmratings with certificate #1815)

What's the problem with those numbers?

And it's either The Seducers (1962):
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056462

or The Seducers (1969):
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063707

The former is distributed by the same company mentioned in filmratings (Joseph Brenner Associates), and the latter was rated X in 1969, according to its U.S. poster (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063707/mediaviewer/rm2057954304/), which would fit perfectly with a number like #239, and could have been re-rated R in 1985 keeping the same number.

As usual with some of these obscure, long-forgotten films, digging up reliable information is a chore.

Editing as we go:
I found this piece of info:
https://thenewbev.com/blog/2017/09/absolutely-mr-brenner-positively-mr-gross/

"Top Sensation aka The Seducers, which Brenner recut and would reissue in 1985."

So definitely the second one.

Okay, well that explains "The Seducers". But "Screen Test" was originally released in 1985 so it's not a case of a re-rate. I didn't think they were still using that numbering system that late into the decade. But the highest number I currently have is 1814, which was given to "Cannibal Holocaust" in 1984. Seems a little odd to me that they wouldn't give a newly released film a regular number in 1985.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
Just noticed a mistake on AFI's site. They have the 1950 James Stewart movie "Harvey" listed as #4694 when in fact it's #14694.
 

CJ121997

Well-known member
Messages
149
Reaction score
3
Trophy Points
18
New titles for this week.

52045 Ghostbusters: Afterlife
52440 Fatherhood
53026 Every Breath You Take
53067 Songs Of Solomon
53091 The Nation Of Butterflies
53092 Send It!
53093 Last Call

2nd consecutive small bulletin (5 out of 7 this year). It's been 7 weeks into the year and still have no G rated films...
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
CJ121997 said:
New titles for this week.

52045 Ghostbusters: Afterlife
52440 Fatherhood
53026 Every Breath You Take
53067 Songs Of Solomon
53091 The Nation Of Butterflies
53092 Send It!
53093 Last Call

2nd consecutive small bulletin (5 out of 7 this year). It's been 7 weeks into the year and still have no G rated films...

Glad to get at least one of the missing early 52,000's. With the two we got this week that now leaves us with 75 missing numbers from the 52,000's.
 
Top Bottom