... based on a user-generated abuse report.
Someone had a serious failure of sense of humour 
"I can't close my eyes, you have taken away my eyelids." |
|
|
by S_y
9 hours ago (Sat Sep 5 2009 11:59:20)
|
|
This site had become pretty f-cked up lately.
I'm not afraid of heights. I'm afraid of fallin'. |
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
What took them?
How do you know it was due to a user-generated abuse report, though, other than logic, of course, since an admin wouldn't lift a finger if he wasn't poked.
Film Gabber > http://imdb.com/board/bd0000007/nest/145750077
|
|
|
I know it was because one of the comments was mine. Comments are never really "deleted" they stick around but are not shown any more. When I went to my user comments section I saw that four of my comments were deleted, three of them I deleted myself, and I can still view them, it says "comment deleted by user" or some such. But my Almost Human one is in there as well now and says that it was deleted because of a report of abuse. All the others are gone as well, so I assume that they were done for the same reason.
With the "What took them?" comment, I've noticed that admins on this site are extreme skeptics and require 100% certainty about anything before acting, logic such as the reviews being silly and contradicting each other is most definitely not enough for them. I can therefore only assume that some very strange individual has been undergoing a campaign against our comments and has also pointed out a post where someone has admitted to them being hoax comments.
"I can't close my eyes, you have taken away my eyelids."
|
|
|
|
by OldAle1
8 hours ago (Sat Sep 5 2009 13:09:32)
|
|
I think it's nearly impossible to get someone's comments deleted though. I've seen some comments that are considered awfully offensive by many of those who view them - the kinds of things where people make threads in the film's forums about how awful the comment is - and never seen 'em wiped out.
But it is weird, certainly. There are a vast number of films on the site that have votes that are totally trolled - including the film at #1 on the Bottom 100 right now which is there just because a bunch of people over the last month decided to put it there, and Terry Gilliam's new Doctor Parnassus which has over 1300 ratings and a 9.5 average despite having only shown at two festivals. People regularly brag about how easy it is to fvck up the ratings - and they're right - so I'm a little surprised that a less-obvious joke like yours was found out or reported or whatever.
The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn from the crow.
|
|
|
I think it's nearly impossible to get someone's comments deleted though
"This comment was deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user".
I'm directly c+ping what IMDb have told me!
"I can't close my eyes, you have taken away my eyelids." |
|
|
|
by OldAle1
8 hours ago (Sat Sep 5 2009 13:21:38)
|
|
 UPDATED Sat Sep 5 2009 13:24:13 |
Well, all right - but I think in this case, as seen from the thread linked lower down, it's because J.Spurlin initiated a complaint about the movie as a whole. Which, by the way, I totally agree with and I would have done had I thought about it or cared. Same thing happened with My Little Pony: The Princess Promenade a couple of years ago - it had a rating high enough to put it in the Top 250 (until they changed the rules to disallow direct-to-video stuff) and all of the reviews were ridiculously effusive. That one was actually more forgiveable IMO - at least the film does exist, and if IMDb isn't generally going to oversee comments or ratings, I'm not sure why they picked on it in particular as the abuse goes on all over the place.
I suppose I shouldn't care though. There's never been any chance that this could be a really reliable or accurate source of information, and it's less likely since Amazon has owned it.
The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn from the crow.
|
|
|
|
by matthewscott8
7 hours ago (Sat Sep 5 2009 13:59:14)
|
|
| UPDATED Sat Sep 5 2009 13:59:49 |
Almost Human we're pretty sure though is a lost film, which is why it was chosen, the intention was never to deceive. Also J. Spurlin wouldn't have been the initiator, someone would have dished to him.
"I can't close my eyes, you have taken away my eyelids."
|
|
|
You may remember that the 'Almost Human' page once held a lot more info and user comments, which were deleted long ago. My deleted user comment also says "...abuse report...".
The admins are extreme skeptics? Need 100% certainty? That's definitely news to me. Try to submit a user comment that says: "This isn't actually a review of the film. This user comment is a joke. It is just to test if anyone actually proof reads this. Stupid admins. etc." See what happens. There is a realistic chance that it gets through.
Film Gabber > http://imdb.com/board/bd0000007/nest/145750077
|
|
|
Yeah I remember there was a partial purge before that I wasn't hit by.
The admins are extreme skeptics? Need 100% certainty?
I'm not referring to accepting new material, I'm referring to deleting existing material or following up on a complaint.
"I can't close my eyes, you have taken away my eyelids." |
|
|
|
by enkibilal
8 hours ago (Sat Sep 5 2009 12:56:25)
|
|
Someone is getting rid of you, one by one.
“The British cinema is made of dullness...“ - F. Truffaut
|
|
|
|
by OldAle1
8 hours ago (Sat Sep 5 2009 13:12:57)
|
|
Well, looks indeed like the (real, human) admins took a hand in things. And it only took them 16 months after that first post!
The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn from the crow.
|
|
|
And it only took them 16 months after that first post!
That's the speed of light, for some sections of the database.  It was probably because the old issue was brought up again on a topic referring to the naked lady ninja movie. (That whole title is now removed, by the way.) You can read that thread here: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000042/thread/146186031. |
|
|
|
by OldAle1
8 hours ago (Sat Sep 5 2009 13:23:07)
|
|
Interesting. I was one of the people who complained about the Naked Lady Ninja film, actually. It was well on its way to #1 on the Top 250...
The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn from the crow.
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
|
by deltajvliet
6 hours ago (Sat Sep 5 2009 14:42:58)
|
|
| UPDATED Sat Sep 5 2009 14:47:28 |
I don't have any idea if the film is available but the three people who wtote Comments...uh...I beg their pardon, they wrote REVIEWS...(quoting from each one--- The hinted at, but never really openly proclaimed (This is 1927 remember) Oedipal love that John Livingston exhibits in the supposed touching scenes with his mother (Played almost tongue-in-cheek by Claire McDowell....Quite frankly I wasn't convinced by the hype around this movie. I hear about all kinds of obscure directors: Frans Zwartjes, Mrinal Sen, Marcel L'Herbier. Few of them ever live up to their rep after I've hunted down their work. There is almost a mythological aura surrounding these lost directors, the halo of the scarce....Men like Kubrick and Lynch are called "revolutionary," "visionary," and "genius," but the "revolutionary" camera techniques, special effects, ideas, etc that such "great" films as Eraserhead and 2001 boast are nothing more than blatant references to, even rip-offs of, Almost Human. The influences Urson has had on film are evident, and yet credit is never given to the director/cinematographer who was the true driving force behind the evolution of cinema.)...consist of one Commentator...uh, REVIEWER who has written well over a hundred of these, and one of them has about forty, and the last one has written only two (under that name, anyway.) What they share in common is that their musings would make a French film critic blush with shame, and they do tend to gush a lot, and are quite full of themselves. If they are real, they are either three of the best satarists to ever come down the pike, or really, really full of themselves. Excuse the repeat, but their work is mind-boggling.
Yeah, we're just cool like that.
Unlike the creeps who have corrupted the data on the 1898 film, most of the people who vandalized Almost Human (1927) actually added some funny stuff; and it seemed that few of them had any malicious intent.
Damn straight.
Nevertheless, deliberately adding false data to a movie is a serious offense.
It was very interesting to find that the funniest information of all - the taglines - were genuine. (I especially love this one: "An unusual, novel, absorbing photo-play with a love theme exquisitely developed, and as full of action as an egg is of meat---Don't miss it.") It shows that the would-be comedians were not talented enough to top reality.
It's interesting that two of the three comment-writers seem to have written a large number of genuine reviews. It's more evidence that the Almost Human vandals were mainly good-natured pranksters.
Yeah, that.
Not that that in any way excuses their vandalism.
Let's do some gratuitous violence. |
|
|
I don't post on FG much, but I do click around here almost daily. I read just about everything on the Contributor board. When I saw the title of this thread, I remembered people there discussing the film and thought that the people here might be interested to know what was said.
|
|
|
Ah. Well thanks for sharing, both links were a good read.
Let's do some gratuitous violence.
|
|
|
Not a lot Melissa, all of it. It was a very funny page, the intention was never to fool anyone that the comments or information was real. Even the guy in the thread admits that it was funny. It just makes me sad, it was a huge amount of fun, and it's been cleared away by people being overzealous, maybe the same individual thinks that recordings of Welles' Martian hoax should be strucken from the historical record?
It was a beautiful page that was an homage to cinephilia. I just think it's sad as well that maybe they're thinking of damaging the accounts of people involved as well. I've written over a 100 user comments, only the Almost Human one was untrue, and it was designed to be clearly untrue. What if they deleted all of my comments? That would make me suicidal, as I love writing it's the only creative outlet I have and takes up a lot of my free time. It would truly be a case of comedy turning into tragedy.
"I can't close my eyes, you have taken away my eyelids."
|
|
|
|
by OldAle1
7 hours ago (Sat Sep 5 2009 13:38:24)
|
|
I doubt they'll go that far, but in case they do - do you have those comments saved? I have all of mine on various word files, so no real harm. I could have my account deleted and I could come back and re-submit the comments. Anyway I don't really see them wiping your account out just for that, as they can't be stupid enough to think there aren't a great many comments on legit films that are fake, and it's not really possible to fix all of them or wipe out all of those users.
While I do appreciate the joke on a certain level, it irritates me no end that this database is so utterly corrupt and useless and stuff like that only adds another level to that uselessness. If one good thing could come out of it, it would be that more effort was made towards having meaningful and factual data and getting rid of the crap that isn't. But as your review or your attempts to correct errors on a film are exactly as meaningful to them as those of some 11-year-old spaz kid, it's not going to happen. The lunatics and the children run this site, not people who care or know about film.
The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn from the crow.
|
|
|
I've got about half of the comments saved, and I'm going to be backing the rest up tomorrow. However it makes me happy the idea that people read them, I want to promote cinephilia. I would continue to write if no-one read, but it would be a snatched joy.
"I can't close my eyes, you have taken away my eyelids."
|
|
|
Don't worry, nothing will happen to any of your other submitted data or your account. Accounts don't get deleted for that kind of thing. Which is also why fu's account wouldn't have been deleted just from some abuse reports regarding piracy.
Film Gabber > http://imdb.com/board/bd0000007/nest/145750077
|
|
|
Besides, don't accounts tend to get astronomical posting quotas and get disabled(as in you have to verify again) before they get deleted? I doubt very much that they'd just skip the first 2 options and then delete it like that.
Ministry - Under My Thumb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM7boGB38gs |
|
|
The pieces are coming together, I think Almost Human might be why my account was disabled last year.
Didn't you get this whole thing started, by the way?
Let's do some gratuitous violence.
|
|
|
Well, I hope that the rest of your comments aren't at risk. What I took from that conversation and other related threads was that the people who submitted bad data, like incorrect quotes and keywords, would possibly have their accounts flagged so that any future information they sent would be scrutinized before going live on the site. I don't think that will be extended to the reviewers, though. The user comments are a separate function from the data acquisition and they're managed differently. Either way, best wishes.
|
|
|
I think it may have been extended to comment writers, I submitted two comments recently that were both very analytical about pretty obscure arthouse movies, that were a 100% legit, deeply felt, and not offensive in the slightest, in fact they were effusive. These comments took a hell of a lot longer than usual to get loaded up.
I just want to emphasise as well that this film page was probably chosen (it's an organic project that just grew without much coordination, so I don't know the reason why) because it was a lost film. The votes that are on the page aren't real either! A particular user had a campaign for everyone to vote it 10/10, it was their signature for ages. We would never have done something like this on a page for a movie that was available and well known. There are Urson films extant, because I believe I saw one on the billing at the Pordenone Silent Film Festival, but not this one.
"I can't close my eyes, you have taken away my eyelids."
|
|
|
|
by OldAle1
7 hours ago (Sat Sep 5 2009 13:54:59)
|
|
But from their POV it's abuse of the system - and I completely agree in principle. Unfortunately, they manage the database so poorly as a whole that there are far, far more abuses that slip through and remain undiscovered for years; and knowledgeable users like you and I still have to jump through hoops to help out with the database in any way, to get information submitted, new films, etc. So it's a hopeless mess IMO and they only hit particular films like this one when somebody reports them enough times.
The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn from the crow.
|
|
|
You missed the inclusion of...166 Min (2008 restored version)(10fps)...(from the original-release 60 minutes
the 14 people (of 17) who found angeljuliet's review USEFUL. But her review, as a parody of far-too-many reviews on this site, is dead on. Especially since it reads like many of them, with only the names of the director(s) changed. In fact, only one name probably had to be changed from which ever "serious" review it was cribbed from on some recent film.
deltajuliet's review? And that was totally original, I didn't take it from anywhere. I'll still take "parody of far-too-many reviews on this site... dead on" as a compliment.
Don't forget the quotes:
Mrs. Livingston: So, you intend to go through with this folly?
Mary Kelly: I must. It is the only way our love will be realised.
Mrs. Livingston: Then let us pray that you are not captured by the authorities. They don't take kindly to relationships of that sort.
-----
Doctor: [talking to Pal and patting his head] Well, Pal, you're too young to remember this, but I brought young Mary into this world. I've watched her grow up, and I wish only her greatest happiness.
Pal, a Dog: WOOF!
Doctor: Sorry, I have a tendency to get sentimental at times. *Of course* you have my blessings.
Whoever came up with that is great.
I like the Trivia line "One of the first films with a body count in excess of 100. The final tally for it is 173 (194 if you count the multiple repeated scenes in the end shoot out)."
Thanks for the heads up. It appears that the (credited) cast list and taglines are legit, but the other data you and others noted was indeed bad. We have identified the accounts responsible, and are cleaning up.
This was May of last year, to the best of my recollection about the same time the posting quota on my first account was taken to 60 minutes. I thought it had to do with some minor trolling on the Collateral board, but... 
Also, how could they possibly verify data for such an obscure, old movie?
Let's do some gratuitous violence. |
|
|
I like the Trivia line "One of the first films with a body count in excess of 100. The final tally for it is 173 (194 if you count the multiple repeated scenes in the end shoot out)."
Thanks, I had forgotten what it was that I added to the trivia 
Why did you delete the post and post it again?
Ministry - Under My Thumb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM7boGB38gs |
|
|
I realized that somehow I'd responded to the wrong post... Not sure how that happened.
Nice bit of trivia, though.
Let's do some gratuitous violence.
|
|
|
|
by timmy_501
6 hours ago (Sat Sep 5 2009 14:36:28)
|
|
Doctor: [talking to Pal and patting his head] Well, Pal, you're too young to remember this, but I brought young Mary into this world. I've watched her grow up, and I wish only her greatest happiness.
Pal, a Dog: WOOF!
Doctor: Sorry, I have a tendency to get sentimental at times. *Of course* you have my blessings.
Great.
Chileans soon accepted Chile as Hell, of course, they are real patriots |
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
I couldn't believe they actually swallowed my running time submission. 10fps
Possibly they simply deleted everything that was submitted after a certain date.
The earliest post I have stored that you made with this account of yours is from June 27th, so I guess it adds up. Disconcerting.
Film Gabber > http://imdb.com/board/bd0000007/nest/145750077
|
|
|
|
Bastards.
That is all.
§ -I do not like your tone / It has ephemeral, whinging aspects.
|
|
|
First the trivia, then the message board was cleaned now also the reviews? It's a shame to see such a wonderful classic being abused and erased from Film history. It's all political I tell thee.
Did you keep a copy of your review? if so do re-post it.
-§alem
Film lovers are sick people. - Francois Truffaut
|
|
|
Yeah I still have it:
Believe the hype, 30 July 2007
(This comment was deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user)
Quite frankly I wasn't convinced by the hype around this movie. I hear about all kinds of obscure directors: Frans Zwartjes, Mrinal Sen, Marcel L'Herbier. Few of them ever live up to their rep after I've hunted down their work. There is almost a mythological aura surrounding these lost directors, the halo of the scarce. I was lucky enough to pick up a Korean bootleg of this movie (only 5000 won on the backstreets of Yongsan!). Now I know this was lucky, but when I watched the movie I became aware that it was not just luck but serendipity. One of my little foibles is an interest in player pianos. I can only guess that Mr Urson shared the same interest. In this movie there are priceless scenes containing in one tavern a Fourneaux pianista, and in a street scene when one of the dogs does a stunt, a Henderson six-octave cabinet barrel piano!
I'm no expert in the mechanics of film-making I'll leave that to the film studies grads. But somehow Mr Urson's manages his exposures in daylight to fully capture the beauty and heat of natural light. It's like you're outside on a hot summer's day sipping a mint julep watching parts of this film. I don't know if the score to this film was original but on my DVD it's a kind of beautiful mix of calliope and strings reminiscent of a Harry von Tilzer piece my mother used to hum.
There is something awesome about the synergy of elements in this movie. You've got precocious cinematography (elements of the great French New Wave cinematographer William Lubtchansky); a great score; innovative narrative arcing (what would the history of cinema have been like if Urson had been more widely distributed?). And then there's the dog training. I mean just how do you get a dog to run into a brownstone that's on fire?
Of course with a pre-Hays code picture there are some slightly prurient elements, but if you just write them of as Marx Brothersesque surrealism they don't damage the tone over all. I don't want to ruin any more of the movie for you. Find it. See it.
And if anyone believes that is a real review, they need to close their mind a bit, because their brain is falling out!
"I can't close my eyes, you have taken away my eyelids." |
|
|
I have read it in the past, glad you kept a copy on your PC.
-§alem
Film lovers are sick people. - Francois Truffaut
|
|
|
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000042/nest/146186031?p=1
I have a sneaking suspicion that the UK reviewer also writes reviews under another name (for the films he has actually seen), and uses the name on this film for those he hasn't seen but knows what he would write if he had seen the film, and doesn't want to lose the prose. Same globe-trotting style and not just everyone can be lucky enough to buy a rare DVD in a Korean alley. Especially on a 1927 silent that everybody in Korea is clamoring for. He must have been there on Trade Days. But I'm his biggest fan...these style-spoofs he writes makes the reviewers who actually write serious reviews in that Major Hoople style---"I give it an 8 of 10 mostly because the director kept the skyline at the top or bottom of the screen and never in the middle"--- look like Ned in the First Reader. Mint julips, indeed.
You've got a fan.
Let's do some gratuitous violence.
|
|
|
Well the guys is a bit delusional, he thinks I have more than one account, and he thinks that more than just the Almost Human comment is fictitious. Plus he refers to my writing style as being "globetrotting", that is ludicrous, I've never been outside of Western Europe. I've not even been out of the UK for about five years. It's a bit strange that he misspells julep even though I've pointed out the correct spelling for him.
I feel like going over there and having it out with him.
"I can't close my eyes, you have taken away my eyelids."
|
|
|
You should. It could be classic.
Let's do some gratuitous violence.
|
|
|
|
by OldAle1
7 hours ago (Sat Sep 5 2009 13:49:43)
|
|
Interestingly all the votes are still there. You would THINK they could come up with some way to not allow people to vote on a lost film - although this doesn't have the "lost" tag (maybe it was removed in the purge...ha ha irony).
The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn from the crow.
|
|
|
I'm not 100% sure it's lost. I read in Sight & Sound about an Urson film being shown at Pordenone. So he's not some totally random director. But I haven't seen any credible evidence that it still exists. I mean a lot of the films that have the lost tag have it because they are lost and incredibly famous there's a load of lost ones I'm sure that no-one can be bothered to tag, how do you "prove" something is lost anyway?
"I can't close my eyes, you have taken away my eyelids."
|
|
|
|
by OldAle1
7 hours ago (Sat Sep 5 2009 13:58:17)
|
|
Good point - though this being an infamous film (here, anyway) you'd think they'd want to tag it in some way and not let people vote for it. Some of Borzage's lost films have votes too - and while I suppose it's theoretically possible that there are some 90-somethings who saw these films in the early 20s or something and remember them and voted on them, the chances seem slim.
The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn from the crow.
|
|
|
Yeah, 4 Devils as well, Murnau's lost film has 53 votes. Somehow I'm also thinking that the 90 year old club haven't been voting on IMDb en masse.
"I can't close my eyes, you have taken away my eyelids." |
|
|
I dug up some info about it a few months ago. Allmovie has some info that they had to get from somewhere, and there was some mention of it in an old file on archive.org(proved that it was actually made for starters). I think I found some more as well, but can't remember now. I did at least visit the company that supposedly owns the rights, but there was no mention of it there. You could always just find it out and then email them and perhaps they'd know something about it.
Ministry - Under My Thumb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM7boGB38gs |
| |
| | |
RSS
| Box Office
| Index
| Trailers
| Jobs
|
IMDbPro.com - Free Trial
| IMDb Resume
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
