The 50,000 Movie Challenge

[Movieman53000]

I found one that is incorrect on that list

#30429 Going Under Should be #30409  #30429 in part of the Mysterious Gap 30412-30550

IMDB is a good source it's just hard to find Numbers you may not have. I Submitted more than 5,000 numbers but have found a lot of PCA #'s which I did not submit that are correct & most new movies have their #'s already listed their so somebody is submitting them. I have a record of every one I submitted. It Takes about a week before they appear on the site. I have also submitted them to appear on the Pro site. They appear almost instantly.

 

[CJ121997]

That list is so outdated!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

Accepting the fact that the last update was more than a decade ago, the numbers on FilmRatings were not around at that time. They were start appearing on that site when the film #50,000 came out, I think.

I spotted several mistakes and missed out numbers, so I corrected them and added more than a thousand titles. Maybe at that time, the contributors didn't even double check if the number was correct.

 

[Movieman53000]

That list is so outdated!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

Accepting the fact that the last update was more than a decade ago, the numbers on FilmRatings were not around at that time. They were start appearing on that site when the film #50,000 came out, I think.

I spotted several mistakes and missed out numbers, so I corrected them. Maybe at that time, the contributors didn't even double check if the number was correct.

I sent him some of the last Numbers he added. I have even sent him a bunch of them a few years ago but nothing happened. My Name was on the Original List. It looks a little different than the last time I looked at it over a year ago & my Name has been removed. I really thought something Happened to him because he suddenly stopped adding to it & Updating it. We send a bunch of them to encourage to jump start it again. I would like to know if he has anything we don't have.

 

[MPAA Challenger]

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.

According to which official source?

 

[Movieman53000]

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

Accepting the fact that the last update was more than a decade ago, the numbers on FilmRatings were not around at that time. They were start appearing on that site when the film #50,000 came out, I think.

I spotted several mistakes and missed out numbers, so I corrected them. Maybe at that time, the contributors didn't even double check if the number was correct.

I sent him some of the last Numbers he added. I have even sent him a bunch of them a few years ago but nothing happened. My Name was on the Original List. It looks a little different than the last time I looked at it over a year ago & my Name has been removed. I really thought something Happened to him because he suddenly stopped adding to it & Updating it. We send a bunch of them to encourage to jump start it again. I would like to know if he has anything we don't have.

In reference to FilmRatings that is about right. About 5 years or so I requested that FilmRaings to add the #'s to their listings. Last year I requested a better search feature where you search by Number the putting the number in the search field. They have not done it yet but hopefully they will. When FilmRatings says they do not have a list that is a lie because their is no way they could have added them without a data list. I know they have Numbers that they could add. I have seen UR listings on FilmRatings & NR is basically the same thing.

It may take a long time but I will complete inputting the Info in my big List & I will complete the list with that info. My first target is the 30412-30550 Gap & I will fill that gap with the info I have. The Easy part is Inputting the info. The Hard part will be cross referencing the info with Titles we have no numbers for with Ratings.

I may even be able to determine what is the correct Number for Wrong Turn 3 by process of elimination. I may even be able to that now.

 

[Frantic Canadian]

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.

According to which official source?

The IMDB has both of those listed with non-zero starting numbers. And in the case of Mr. Bug Goes To Town, AFI also has it listed as 3179, not 03179.

 

[MPAA Challenger]

You trust IMDb and AFI? Or the on-screen credits? I'm a Top Contributor to IMDb, and I don't trust IMDb, except the data I've myself submitted, among which there's thousands of MPA numbers, btw. When it comes to MPA numbers, AFI is a joke too. They had access to the original MPA files for each movie, and still they managed to blunder many of them and fail to include many more.

Also, check the years of both movies, does the chronology make any sense with the regular certificates from those years?

 

[CJ121997]

In reference to FilmRatings that is about right. About 5 years or so I requested that FilmRaings to add the #'s to their listings. Last year I requested a better search feature where you search by Number the putting the number in the search field. They have not done it yet but hopefully they will. When FilmRatings says they do not have a list that is a lie because their is no way they could have added them without a data list. I know they have Numbers that they could add. I have seen UR listings on FilmRatings & NR is basically the same thing.

So you requested the webmaster to include the number in the films' details back in 2015? Like there were 5 attributes of a title, now 6.

 

[Frantic Canadian]

You trust IMDb and AFI? Or the on-screen credits? I'm a Top Contributor to IMDb, and I don't trust IMDb, except the data I've myself submitted, among which there's thousands of MPA numbers, btw. When it comes to MPA numbers, AFI is a joke too. They had access to the original MPA files for each movie, and still they managed to blunder many of them and fail to include many more.

Also, check the years of both movies, does the chronology make any sense with the regular certificates from those years?

I am more likely to trust AFI. IMDB has been notorious in the past for listing incorrect certificate numbers, although they appear to be more accurate with more recent films. The on-screen credits are also notorious for listing incorrect numbers. At least when it comes to post-1968 films. Need I remind you that the number 39360 appears in the end credits of at least 10 separate films? In this case, however, I am not sure what to believe. On the one hand all three sources do list the same number for Mr. Bug Goes To Town, albeit the IMDB and AFI omit the preceding 0. So that could simply be a case of a typo. We are also talking about two films from Fleischer Studios. I don't think I've ever seen an approval number for anything by them that wasn't preceded by a 0. At the same time these are also feature-length films and I have yet to see a feature-length film with an approval number that begins with 0. Given all the evidence, however, I am more likely to believe the on-screen credits in this case. And in this case only.

 

[CJ121997]

You trust IMDb and AFI? Or the on-screen credits? I'm a Top Contributor to IMDb, and I don't trust IMDb, except the data I've myself submitted, among which there's thousands of MPA numbers, btw. When it comes to MPA numbers, AFI is a joke too. They had access to the original MPA files for each movie, and still they managed to blunder many of them and fail to include many more.

Also, check the years of both movies, does the chronology make any sense with the regular certificates from those years?

I rarely trust IMDb and AFI because both are not reliable. The numbers on the AFI might not be right. For the NR films, I took the credits of the film to fill the missing numbers unless proven otherwise.

 

[MPAA Challenger]

25 seconds into this movie, right in the title card:

According to IMDb, the certificate "pca #4528" belongs to 2 different movies separated by 10 years:

The Search (1948)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040765/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg#certification

Boys Town (1938)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029942/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg#certification

The reality is, as clearly seen on the title card, that the 1948 movie, a US-Switzerland Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture produced by a Swiss company in Germany, has a zero certificate number: #04528

However, when I sent a submission to correct this just now, I realized something curious. The number that shows up on the IMDb editing form is indeed "#04528", which means that whoever submitted it originally was using the correct number. However, when this number shows up on the public IMDb page (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040765/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg#certification), it appears as "#4528", eliminating the zero.

So, this is just an IMDb software/algorithm/whatever problem, which happens when the number is expressed as "PCA #0XXXX" (Production Code Administration). This "PCA #" attribute is accepted automatically by IMDb, but if there is a zero to the left, at the beginning of the number, this zero is eliminated and it doesn't show up on the public page. The only way to make the initial zero appear is express the attribute in a different manner, such as "MPAA #0XXXX" or "certificate no. 0XXXX" or some such variant. Then, and only then, the zero shows up.

Now I'm wondering how many Zero numbers have been correctly submitted to IMDb but are showing up incorrectly due to this glitch. I intend to make IMDb aware of this blunder and see if they can correct it.

P.S. I found the movie I linked to on youtube, but I realize it's surely pirated content and should be taken down. Feel free to report it and/or delete the link here if that's the case.

 

[MPAA Challenger]

BTW, I just checked AFI and of course both movies have #4528 as their PCA code despide the decade of distance between them, proving once again how reliable the American Film Institute is in this matter.

Who cares the MPA used the ZERO for 34 years and 7000 titles as a distinctive to diferentiate foreign movies, documentaries and certain kind of shorts from US movies and other kind of shorts? Let's ignore all of them and create chaos and confusion in our databases.

 

[MPAA Challenger]

Another unsurprising surprise:

I just checked and the MPA numbers of the 2 above mentioned animated movies from Fleischer studios have been correctly introduced in the database as ZERO numbers. 

This means that what's in the database as:

"(PCA #02172)" shows up as to the public as "(pca #2172)"

"(PCA #03179)" shows up as to the public as "(pca #3179)"

IMDb is being fooling us all along due to some f***ed-up algorithm that automatically does two things:

- converts upper-case to lower case: "PCA" to "pca".
- eliminates any zeros to the left: "#0XXXX" to "#XXXX".

Who knows how many (surely hundreds, probably even thousands) ZERO numbers are in this exact IMDb situation: correct in the internal database and incorrect in the public pages.

I've contacted the IMDb staff about this explaining the whole blunder in detail. Let's see if they do something about it.

 

[CJ121997]

Another unsurprising surprise:

I just checked and the MPA numbers of the 2 above mentioned animated movies from Fleischer studios have been correctly introduced in the database as ZERO numbers. 

This means that what's in the database as:

"(PCA #02172)" shows up as to the public as "(pca #2172)"

"(PCA #03179)" shows up as to the public as "(pca #3179)"

IMDb is being fooling us all along due to some f***ed-up algorithm that automatically does two things:

- converts upper-case to lower case: "PCA" to "pca".
- eliminates any zeros to the left: "#0XXXX" to "#XXXX".

Who knows how many (surely hundreds, probably even thousands) ZERO numbers are in this exact IMDb situation: correct in the internal database and incorrect in the public pages.

I've contacted the IMDb staff about this explaining the whole blunder in detail. Let's see if they do something about it.

It might be because the data type of the number used in the database is an integer. If the number is a text and there's nothing to do with the calculations, it would display the preceding 0. This is what I've done to certificate numbers on my list by converting the integer to text.

 

[MPAA Challenger]

It might be because the data type of the number used in the database is an integer. If the number is a text and there's nothing to do with the calculations, it would display the preceding 0. This is what I've done to certificate numbers on my list by converting the integer to text.

Whatever the technical explanation is, it's wreaked havoc on a lot of correct data, presenting it inaccurately and erroneously to the users. I can't wait to receive their response to my inquiry. I have my doubts they're going to comply with my demand to assess this as an error to correct. They might have the nerve to stick to their guns without admitting anything's actually wrong.

BTW, 12 movies + 1 re-rating in the brand new bulletin:

https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/cara_rating_bulletin.pdf

and I have to admit, most of them very interesting and rated "R" as I like them.

 

[Frantic Canadian]

It might be because the data type of the number used in the database is an integer. If the number is a text and there's nothing to do with the calculations, it would display the preceding 0. This is what I've done to certificate numbers on my list by converting the integer to text.

Whatever the technical explanation is, it's wreaked havoc on a lot of correct data, presenting it inaccurately and erroneously to the users. I can't wait to receive their response to my inquiry. I have my doubts they're going to comply with my demand to assess this as an error to correct. They might have the nerve to stick to their guns without admitting anything's actually wrong.

BTW, 12 movies + 1 re-rating in the brand new bulletin:

https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/cara_rating_bulletin.pdf

and I have to admit, most of them very interesting and rated "R" as I like them.

How are you guys getting the new numbers already. A couple of weeks ago CJ121997 posted them as well and when I checked it still hadn't updated for me. When I click the link above I still get the listings for the January 27th ratings.

Edit: Okay, that's weird. I just tried again and it still gave me the listings from January 27th. Turn on my VPN and refresh the page and now I get the listings for February 3rd. Turn off my VPN and refresh the page and the listings for February 3rd remain.

 

[Frantic Canadian]

New numbers this week:

52927 Strip Down, Rise Up (re-rate)
52990 Boogie

53020 Assault On VA-33
53037 Final Account
53052 Zack Snyder’s Justice League
53072 The Voyeurs
53074 Night Of The Kings
53077 Walking With Herb
53078 Together Together
53079 SAS: Red Notice
53080 The Seventh Day
53081 Inversion
53082 12 Mighty Orphans

With that new 52000's number that now leaves us with 77 missing numbers for the 52000's.

 

[Frantic Canadian]

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.

Just checked again and page 3 is still blank. I had had the same issue with another year I worked on recently but couldn't figure out which one it was. I just did. Page 10 for 2015's PG-13 listings is blank. Page 9 ends with "The Last Witch Hunger" and page 11 starts with "Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials".

 

[CJ121997]

 
BTW, 12 movies + 1 re-rating in the brand new bulletin:

https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/cara_rating_bulletin.pdf

and I have to admit, most of them very interesting and rated "R" as I like them.

I'm so surprised this week's bulletin has adequate amount of titles, after a few weeks of small bulletins. A sizable amount of bulletins (14 or more titles) would be enough to populate the blank spaces between, regardless of titles' ratings and their popularity.

 

[MPAA Challenger]

IMDb has gotten back to me on the ZeroGate:

"We've forwarded this information to our technical team for further investigation. We will email you back when we receive an update on this."