• 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

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
@"Movieman53000" Your master list in numerical chronological order up until #45000 and then it's all random. Why is that?
 

Movieman53000

Well-known member
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
16
Frantic Canadian said:
@"Movieman53000" Your master list in numerical chronological order up until #45000 and then it's all random. Why is that?

I was getting my missing counts so I sorted it that way. I will put it back to normal if you need me to. 

Fixed
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
Movieman53000 said:
Frantic Canadian said:
@"Movieman53000" Your master list in numerical chronological order up until #45000 and then it's all random. Why is that?

I was getting my missing counts so I sorted it that way. I will put it back to normal if you need me to. 

Fixed

There's some years (2012-2016) that I have marked down as probably complete, meaning that I should have every number released during those years. I was going through 2016 rating-by-rating to verify that I wasn't missing any and I thought it would save me time if I just compared my list to yours. But when I saw that yours wasn't in order for that period I decided to just go through my list and write down any numbers I still needed and continue what I was doing but with a much smaller list to check. It's actually quite time-saving to do it this way as opposed to comparing it against my master list. And I'm glad I did it because I've already come across 7 numbers that didn't have. I must have missed a bulletin one week, I guess. As of right now I've got 29 missing numbers for the 50,000's. I'm about to start page 23 of 32 for the R's, though so I may find some more that I had missed.
 

Movieman53000

Well-known member
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
16
Frantic Canadian said:
Movieman53000 said:
Frantic Canadian said:
@"Movieman53000" Your master list in numerical chronological order up until #45000 and then it's all random. Why is that?

I was getting my missing counts so I sorted it that way. I will put it back to normal if you need me to. 

Fixed

There's some years (2012-2016) that I have marked down as probably complete, meaning that I should have every number released during those years. I was going through 2016 rating-by-rating to verify that I wasn't missing any and I thought it would save me time if I just compared my list to yours. But when I saw that yours wasn't in order for that period I decided to just go through my list and write down any numbers I still needed and continue what I was doing but with a much smaller list to check. It's actually quite time-saving to do it this way as opposed to comparing it against my master list. And I'm glad I did it because I've already come across 7 numbers that didn't have. I must have missed a bulletin one week, I guess. As of right now I've got 29 missing numbers for the 50,000's. I'm about to start page 23 of 32 for the R's, though so I may find some more that I had missed.
I had the 50,000 so you could see just the 50,000 that i was missing in order by number but resorted it to normal. I can sort my list so you see what I'm missing from lowest to highest or any thousand sequence you want just let me know. it will take a minute to open the list & a few minutes to sort it.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
Movieman53000 said:
Frantic Canadian said:
Movieman53000 said:
Frantic Canadian said:
@"Movieman53000" Your master list in numerical chronological order up until #45000 and then it's all random. Why is that?

I was getting my missing counts so I sorted it that way. I will put it back to normal if you need me to. 

Fixed

There's some years (2012-2016) that I have marked down as probably complete, meaning that I should have every number released during those years. I was going through 2016 rating-by-rating to verify that I wasn't missing any and I thought it would save me time if I just compared my list to yours. But when I saw that yours wasn't in order for that period I decided to just go through my list and write down any numbers I still needed and continue what I was doing but with a much smaller list to check. It's actually quite time-saving to do it this way as opposed to comparing it against my master list. And I'm glad I did it because I've already come across 7 numbers that didn't have. I must have missed a bulletin one week, I guess. As of right now I've got 29 missing numbers for the 50,000's. I'm about to start page 23 of 32 for the R's, though so I may find some more that I had missed.
I had the 50,000 so you could see just the 50,000 that i was missing in order by number but resorted it to normal. I can sort my list so you see what I'm missing from lowest to highest or any thousand sequence you want just let me know. it will take a minute to open the list & a few minutes to sort it.

No, it's alright. I did find a couple of Not Rated films in your list that I didn't have though. I currently sit at 23 missing numbers for 50000 - 50999.

Also, you're missing the following two from your list:

50977 Status Update
50989 The Mountain Between Us

That should bring you to 24 missing.
 

Movieman53000

Well-known member
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
16
Frantic Canadian said:
Movieman53000 said:
Frantic Canadian said:
Movieman53000 said:
Frantic Canadian said:
@"Movieman53000" Your master list in numerical chronological order up until #45000 and then it's all random. Why is that?

I was getting my missing counts so I sorted it that way. I will put it back to normal if you need me to. 

Fixed

There's some years (2012-2016) that I have marked down as probably complete, meaning that I should have every number released during those years. I was going through 2016 rating-by-rating to verify that I wasn't missing any and I thought it would save me time if I just compared my list to yours. But when I saw that yours wasn't in order for that period I decided to just go through my list and write down any numbers I still needed and continue what I was doing but with a much smaller list to check. It's actually quite time-saving to do it this way as opposed to comparing it against my master list. And I'm glad I did it because I've already come across 7 numbers that didn't have. I must have missed a bulletin one week, I guess. As of right now I've got 29 missing numbers for the 50,000's. I'm about to start page 23 of 32 for the R's, though so I may find some more that I had missed.
I had the 50,000 so you could see just the 50,000 that i was missing in order by number but resorted it to normal. I can sort my list so you see what I'm missing from lowest to highest or any thousand sequence you want just let me know. it will take a minute to open the list & a few minutes to sort it.

No, it's alright. I did find a couple of Not Rated films in your list that I didn't have though. I currently sit at 23 missing numbers for 50000 - 50999.

Also, you're missing the following two from your list:

50977 Status Update
50989 The Mountain Between Us

That should bring you to 24 missing.
I do not know how I could have missed those on filmRatings. I went through each year rating-by-rating twice
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
Movieman53000 said:
Frantic Canadian said:
No, it's alright. I did find a couple of Not Rated films in your list that I didn't have though. I currently sit at 23 missing numbers for 50000 - 50999.

Also, you're missing the following two from your list:

50977 Status Update
50989 The Mountain Between Us

That should bring you to 24 missing.
I do not know how I could have missed those on filmRatings. I went through each year rating-by-rating twice

I don't know. I found something like 10 that I didn't have and I've been checking the bulletins every week for years. I even found one, for Megan Leavy, that I was positive I had but it was not in my list.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
@"Movieman53000" you're missing the following from your list:

49319 Horns
49473 Aftermath

51207 Different Flowers

You also still have 51807 as Holmes And Watson.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
Well, this sucks. I'm going through the PG-13 rated films for 1984 and there should be 25 but for some reason the third page is showing up blank. There's 10 entries per page and the second page ends with Red Dawn. I've checked the IMDB for films released that year, set them alphabetically from Z-A, and still only managed to come up with three of the missing five. The ones I managed to find are The River, Runaway, and The Woman In Red.
 

Movieman53000

Well-known member
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
16
Frantic Canadian said:
Well, this sucks. I'm going through the PG-13 rated films for 1984 and there should be 25 but for some reason the third page is showing up blank. There's 10 entries per page and the second page ends with Red Dawn. I've checked the IMDB for films released that year, set them alphabetically from Z-A, and still only managed to come up with three of the missing five. The ones I managed to find are The River, Runaway, and The Woman In Red.

I get the same thing. Yes, there should be 25 perhaps they will be their tomorrow. My big list list I work on does not have a rating column. I deleted it. I'm working adding the Year, Rating & movie Length to the title so I no longer have the rating column. I do not even have the release year column anymore. I no way to check it for you. It may be just a little glitch they may show up tomorrow.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
Movieman53000 said:
Frantic Canadian said:
Well, this sucks. I'm going through the PG-13 rated films for 1984 and there should be 25 but for some reason the third page is showing up blank. There's 10 entries per page and the second page ends with Red Dawn. I've checked the IMDB for films released that year, set them alphabetically from Z-A, and still only managed to come up with three of the missing five. The ones I managed to find are The River, Runaway, and The Woman In Red.

I get the same thing. Yes, there should be 25 perhaps they will be their tomorrow. My big list list I work on does not have a rating column. I deleted it. I'm working adding the Year, Rating & movie Length to the title so I no longer have the rating column. I do not even have the release year column anymore. I no way to check it for you. It may be just a little glitch they may show up tomorrow.

My list is pretty basic. I use Wordpad documents. I've got one for every 1000 number sequence, one for the ones that start with 0, and then two for what I call "weird numbers". Those are the ones from the 70's and 80's that should be in the 20,000's but for some reason are only between 1 and 2000. Oh, and I've got one for what I call "problem numbers". That sheet is for numbers that aren't listed even though the MPPDA/MPAA logo is shown, numbers that are too small to be read, numbers where I'm uncertain of certain numbers, and movies that had their rating surrendered but still bear a number. The last ones are only on this list if the numbers aren't listed during the end credits or available online.

The only info I include on my lists are the certificate/approval numbers and the films titles. If the film has any alternate titles I will include it/them in parenthesis until I can verify which title is accurate. I've come across some where the main title the film is listed under isn't even the title the film was released under so I like to keep that info on hand just in case. If the film is foreign I will also include the film's original title in parenthesis. And if it's a case where an older film has received a new certificate/approval number because it was re-released then I will include that info in parenthesis as well. For example, the Alfred Hitchock film Rope was re-released, or re-issued as they list it, in 1984. So my entry for that film would look as follows:

27078 Rope (1984 re-release of 1948 film)

There are some instances also where two films with the same title will be released in the same thousand number sequence. In cases where that happens I just put the studio or distributor in parenthesis for both entries. That way I know which is which and I'm not wondering why I have two entries with the same title in the same sheet. It also helps in case I end up watching one of them. That way I know which one to mark off, or put in bold rather.
 

CJ121997

Well-known member
Messages
149
Reaction score
3
Trophy Points
18
Movieman53000 said:
Frantic Canadian said:
Well, this sucks. I'm going through the PG-13 rated films for 1984 and there should be 25 but for some reason the third page is showing up blank. There's 10 entries per page and the second page ends with Red Dawn. I've checked the IMDB for films released that year, set them alphabetically from Z-A, and still only managed to come up with three of the missing five. The ones I managed to find are The River, Runaway, and The Woman In Red.

I get the same thing. Yes, there should be 25 perhaps they will be their tomorrow. My big list list I work on does not have a rating column. I deleted it. I'm working adding the Year, Rating & movie Length to the title so I no longer have the rating column. I do not even have the release year column anymore. I no way to check it for you. It may be just a little glitch they may show up tomorrow.
FilmRatings is active since about 20 years ago. That glitch is there for a long time and it may never go away because the website is focusing on ratings of the upcoming films.
 

CJ121997

Well-known member
Messages
149
Reaction score
3
Trophy Points
18
Frantic Canadian said:
My list is pretty basic. I use Wordpad documents. I've got one for every 1000 number sequence, one for the ones that start with 0, and then two for what I call "weird numbers". Those are the ones from the 70's and 80's that should be in the 20,000's but for some reason are only between 1 and 2000. Oh, and I've got one for what I call "problem numbers". That sheet is for numbers that aren't listed even though the MPPDA/MPAA logo is shown, numbers that are too small to be read, numbers where I'm uncertain of certain numbers, and movies that had their rating surrendered but still bear a number. The last ones are only on this list if the numbers aren't listed during the end credits or available online.

The only info I include on my lists are the certificate/approval numbers and the films titles. If the film has any alternate titles I will include it/them in parenthesis until I can verify which title is accurate. I've come across some where the main title the film is listed under isn't even the title the film was released under so I like to keep that info on hand just in case. If the film is foreign I will also include the film's original title in parenthesis. And if it's a case where an older film has received a new certificate/approval number because it was re-released then I will include that info in parenthesis as well. For example, the Alfred Hitchock film Rope was re-released, or re-issued as they list it, in 1984. So my entry for that film would look as follows:

27078 Rope (1984 re-release of 1948 film)

There are some instances also where two films with the same title will be released in the same thousand number sequence. In cases where that happens I just put the studio or distributor in parenthesis for both entries. That way I know which is which and I'm not wondering why I have two entries with the same title in the same sheet. It also helps in case I end up watching one of them. That way I know which one to mark off, or put in bold rather.

For my list, it's slightly different. It includes only the year, certificate numbers, and the film titles, good for three columns. I have separate sheets for titles that are currently unobtainable on the net, numbers improperly assigned for several films from 1968-early 1980s, and films without numbers (uncredited and logo without a number). If all numbers, especially those from PCA/NR titles, were available online, I would make the list a bit complicated, which would include the rating and the distributor of the film, and create a separate sheet for films whose number starts with 0.
 

MPAA Challenger

Active member
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
11
Frantic Canadian said:
My list is pretty basic. I use Wordpad documents. I've got one for every 1000 number sequence, one for the ones that start with 0, and then two for what I call "weird numbers". Those are the ones from the 70's and 80's that should be in the 20,000's but for some reason are only between 1 and 2000. 

I don’t find it that “weird”. After 20 years chasing these numbers, this is the way I understand it:

From 1934 til 1968 there were 2 sets of numbers:

The regular ones, used mainly for American movies, serials, and shorts, which continued after 1968 and last to this day.

The ZERO numbers: (the ones that start with a zero), used mainly for foreign movies (mostly British), certain U.S. documentaries, and shorts from certain companies like Paramount (Popeye, Betty Boop, Superman…).

The reason why shorts from Disney, Warner (Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies), MGM (Tom & Jerry, Tex Avery) or Universal (Woody Woodpecker) were given regular numbers while the ones from Paramount and Columbia were given Zero numbers, that’s a mystery to me. There’s not any discernible significant difference of quality (production values) or popularity between them, but it was decided that way for whatever other reason.

What’s clear is that both sets are totally independent from each other, and both are made of a straight sequence of consecutive numbers starting with #1 and #01 respectively, and going on ad infinitum.

However, the gaps in the list of known zero numbers are much more abundant than in the regular list. The first known zero number #014, and I reckon less than half of their total were in the original Dutch list. I call it that because it was spearheaded and maintained by a Dutch guy and it’s still there on a Dutch web domain (http://filmnummers.nl/), albeit abandoned in a frozen state since 2007. Last time I contacted the Dutchman (I was one of his many international collaborators) was when I discovered the existence of filmratings.com over a decade ago. He was elated to hear about it, and even talked about jump starting his list again, but nothing came of it.

Now, in 1968 things change when the new rating system is introduced. The regular numbers are continued without a hitch from somewhere in the middle of the 21 thousands and kept going to this day when they’ve reached the 53 thousands.

Meanwhile, the Zero numbers are discontinued, but apparently not right away, since you can find a total of 13 of them on filmratings, the highest one being #06854, which might well be the last of the Zero numbers.

However, the Zero numbers are, in a way, replaced by a new set of numbers that start over again, but this time without a zero. These new “secondary” numbers are given mainly to adult movies, rated “X”, but also to foreign movies of all ratings, even “G”, and last from 1968 til 1982. On filmratings, the lowest of these numbers is  #101 and the highest is #1815, but of course there's plenty of gaps in between. Those two might well be the first and last of these new numbers.

Why they, apparently, started this new set with #101 and not just #1, that’s another mystery, but again this is just a new straight sequence of consecutive numbers (only starting with #101 instead of #01, if filmratings.com is to be trusted), and going on until it was discontinued somewhere in the lower 18 hundreds. From then on, only the main sequence of regular numbers remains to this day.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
MPAA Challenger said:
I don’t find it that “weird”. 

The only reason why I called them weird is because I didn't know what else to call them in order to be able to differentiate them from my regular lists. And also because I thought it was weird that they'd start numbering them from scratch again while at the same time still using their old numbering system for other films.
 
The ZERO numbers: (the ones that start with a zero), used mainly for foreign movies (mostly British), certain U.S. documentaries, and shorts from certain companies like Paramount (Popeye, Betty Boop, Superman…).

The only numbers I've ever come across that start with 0 were all assigned to shorts. I've never seen any assigned to foreign films or documentaries.
 

MPAA Challenger

Active member
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
11
Frantic Canadian said:
The only numbers I've ever come across that start with 0 were all assigned to shorts. I've never seen any assigned to foreign films or documentaries.

You should re-check the Dutch list. Dozens upon dozens of British films, at least one Italian, and several U.S. documentaries have Zero numbers.
 

MPAA Challenger

Active member
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
11
There's even 2 American animation features that received Zeros:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031397/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033727/

Both are from "Fleischer Studios", the same factory that churned out hundreds of Popeyes, Betty Boops, Little Lulus, etc for Paramount., all of them Zero-certified as well. Seriously, I swear this animation studio alone monopolized half the zero certificate list.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
MPAA Challenger said:
Frantic Canadian said:
The only numbers I've ever come across that start with 0 were all assigned to shorts. I've never seen any assigned to foreign films or documentaries.

You should re-check the Dutch list. Dozens upon dozens of British films, at least one Italian, and several U.S. documentaries have Zero numbers.

I don't use that site. I only use official sources.
 

Frantic Canadian

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
8
Trophy Points
48
MPAA Challenger said:
There's even 2 American animation features that received Zeros:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031397/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033727/

Both are from "Fleischer Studios", the same factory that churned out hundreds of Popeyes, Betty Boops, Little Lulus, etc for Paramount., all of them Zero-certified as well. Seriously, I swear this animation studio alone monopolized half the zero certificate list.

Both of those films have regular, non-zero, numbers.
 

Movieman53000

Well-known member
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
16
MPAA Challenger said:
Frantic Canadian said:
The only numbers I've ever come across that start with 0 were all assigned to shorts. I've never seen any assigned to foreign films or documentaries.

You should re-check the Dutch list. Dozens upon dozens of British films, at least one Italian, and several U.S. documentaries have Zero numbers.

That list is so outdated! it's loaded with incorrect Numbers. My Name was on the contributor list. It have mysteriously as updated date of Today but nothing has been added in 10 years. It stops at 43988 which mean it's missing more than 9,000 after that number & another 15,000 before it. It has so Numbers with multiple Duplicates 5,6,7 which is not possible. FilmRatings has more Numbers than he has. AFI may even have more. We have more than he Has. He also does not make corrections to his List. According to his list he has 20594. We each have more than 45,000. That's more than double. We have about 92% of the list complete. His list is less 45% complete
 
Top Bottom