imdb

[SSO Admins]

I find imdb to be useful, if somewhat flawed. But today I found something completely ludicrous. In a biography of Renée Adorée, the author had posted the following.

Spoilers for The Big Parade ahead:

All that changed in 1925 when she starred as Melisande with John Gilbert in THE BIG PARADE. This was a romantic story of a couple falling in love before Gilbert's character was sent off to war. He returns unscathed and the happy couple is once again together.

What the hell? Did this person even watch the movie?

1. John Gilbert was in love with Claire Adams before going to war, although she wasn't totally sold on him.

2. He doesn't return unscathed, he's missing a leg.

3. While in Europe, he falls in love with Melissande, a French girl played by Adorée. Upon returning home, he discovers that Claire Adams is now in love with his brother, and he returns to Europe after the war to find Melisande.

Seriously, it's like this person was writing about a totally different film.

I posted a correction deleting the synopsis, but it will be a day or so before we find out if the editors make the change.

[moira finnie]

Hi Jon,
While I find that IMDb is one of the best sources for movie info on the web, the inaccuracy you describe isn't unique. I sure hope that your update is accepted by the gods of IMDb. I have the same problem with the reader-edited Wikipedia (which is actually worse when it comes to inaccuracies, though fun to read with while ingesting a very large grain of salt). Do you think that any of the "authors" of the biographies that appear on IMDb are actually paid staff members or could they be contributors who do such work as a freebie?

I've also experienced similar disillusionment with some written work of recent origin, which somehow seems worse to me than nonsense on the internet. I've sometimes discovered that reputable authors of bios and critical volumes about film obviously haven't seen the films that they are allegedly "experts" on. Research is a harsh mistress, but it seems kind of unethical to take money for a book and then be so sloppy, doesn't it?

[Lzcutter]

While I find that IMDb is one of the best sources for movie info on the web, the inaccuracy you describe isn't unique.

Jon and Moira,

Imdb is a terrific resource but no one should take the info as gospel. It is compiled by people on the web and prone to mistakes. I cringe every time I see a post at TCM City with folks touting something on IMDB as gospel.

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi All,

I went onto IMDb this morning just to see what, if anything, had improved or was worse.
The first thing I spotted was: "Was Rin Tin Tin gay?"........
Well, after shock and laughter, I ventured forth and came to the conclusion that most of the old, knowledgeable, sane posters had gone like me and there's nothing but crap on there still.
I haven't ventured onto that site for about 6 months and probably won't again.

TCM is getting the same way. Bartlett & Snarfie are now 'at it'.......

Larry

[mrsl]

I use imdB mainly for dates and cast names. Occassionally I'll get a clue to something in the bio, but unless I've seen the same item in a far different media, like from the actors' mouth, I don't take it as creed.

The same goes for TCM message boards, I see a lot of people returning to post there, but I can't understand their kicking a dead horse. TCM is so loaded with ignorance lately, it seems foolish to waste your time. Also, it takes away from this board. When posting there, very few copy over to SSO and the benefits of those thoughts are lost. Last week I saw one of our best posters called a 'know-it-alll'. That is exactly my point. The posters there at TCM today consider a knowledgeable comment as lording it over them instead of simply a kind sharing. ie., it shows the mentality of the present posters.

Anne

[precoder]

Hiya folks ...

I can't recall how many threads I've read entitled something like; How do we get young people into classic film?. Well, I've been seeing more and more youngsters participate in movie boards. I've gotten to know some of them. Some of their posting is horrendous but they are showing an interest and are learning. They also seem to be really loving the old films and provide a fresh perspective so I always try to make an extra effort to afford them leeway and not correct them but maybe provide a link ...

Things slip sometimes. I once posted how wonderful I thought Howard Keel was in "Oklahoma" and how "Cecil B DeMille" flawlessly entered the talkies with "Abraham Lincoln" ... When you get corrected you can only eat it and say thanks, I made a mistake. It happens ...

But I don't understand how someone would feel even remotely inclined to write any sort of synopsis on a film they've never seen. Referencing the film I get, but a review? Why bother?

I use IMDb because I like the way it's organized. I can find what I need to know pretty quick. But I don't use it exclusively ...

I would suggest if you see an inaccuracy, attempt to submit a correction simply for the sake of improving it for everyone. IMDb remains the single best web source for quick answers when you need them ... 98.5% of the time ...