Intro Pt.1: IMDB and the Early Internet

IMDB was the playground of my early internet days. I was eleven and typed something like "movies" into Google, and there was the Internet Movie Database - an encyclopedic catalog of all cinematic endeavors. For the next few years I spent endless hours exploring the site. I memorized Oscar winners, read countless user-generated reviews, and absorbed pointless movie trivia. It was thrilling (for a film nerd), and it was just there, on the internet, for free. I absorbed everything IMDB had to offer until my search for worthless film knowledge hit diminishing returns. My obsessive movie consumption faded and I moved on. And then I discovered Letterboxd.  

Intro Pt. 2: Letterboxd vs. IMDB: A Primer

Letterboxd is a hip, (slightly more) pretentious IMDB with a greater emphasis on social experience. The site focuses on list creation and promotion, with users sharing film preferences through curated guides. Examples of popular lists include:

• chick flicks

• Top 100 Asian Movies of all time

• Befriending the lyrical loneliness…

• Psychosexual dramas, nihilistic fever dreams & surrealism with a touch of humour 

• what is reality?

It's a strangely wonderful celebration of movies and the quirky cinephiles who worship movies.

On Letterboxd, film discovery is a communal affair akin to AV club meetings or introductory film courses. The platform's virtue and social cohesion are reminiscent of a hobbyist message board from the late 90s. It's just a bunch of film nerds having fun.

And while Letterboxd may sound like some rinky-dink operation, the site has grown in prominence over the last few years, so much so that you can now see Letterboxd review scores on the "About" section of film-related Google searches (alongside IMDB, no less): 

IMDB and Letterboxd are functionally similar - users rank movies, users write reviews, and users can discover films. But through minor differences in form, Letterboxd has cultivated a (relatively) small base of highly-engaged cinephiles. Letterboxd movie reviews resemble quirky Twitter threads, while IMDB ratings read more like Amazon product reviews. Letterboxd users majored in film or wished they majored in film, while the average IMDB user is pretty much the average human. The two sites serve different markets - one niche and one broad. Sometimes the pretension on Letterboxd can be insufferable, but the film discovery experience greatly outweighs some light snobbery (or at least I think so). 

Movie databases like IMDB and Letterboxd present a unique intersection of moviegoer taste and large-scale data capture. Users express viewing preferences as free-form text reviews and star ratings, and the platforms parse, catalog, and aggregate this user-generated content to improve the discovery experience. And perhaps quantifying artistic value robs creative expression of its purity, but I also don't care. I like to know what is statistically best and measurably not worth my time. 

While both sites are similar in core function, there is significant difference in user preference and expression. User-generated content defines the consumer experience on Letterboxd and IMDB. So how exactly does content differ between platforms? Where are the critical points of differentiation? And what does it mean when Letterboxd detests IMDB's taste in movies (and vice-versa)?    

Methodology: How are Letterboxd and IMDB Different?

We'll compare Letterboxd and IMDB by examining each site’s evaluation of a predefined set of films. Think of it as a movie website Rorschach test. Our focus areas are popularity, as dictated by film review count, and critical acclaim, as determined by a movie's average star rating. To provide a more straightforward comparison, we'll normalize our data into rating and popularity percentiles within the two platforms. For example, Deadpool is in the 60th percentile in IMDB average rating score (for our subset of movies) and the 20th percentile for that same metric on Letterboxd - it appears Letterboxd users aren't embracing Marvel's lovable nihilist.

Dataset and Analysis: 

Our dataset features rating counts and averages for 2,400 movies on IMDB and Letterboxd. This dataset covers a subset of films on both sites and should illustrate distinctions in cultural output for each user base. 

Analysis Overview:

We'll examine films that diverge between the two platforms in the following areas: 

• Review Volume: How large is IMDB's review base compared to Letterboxd? 

• Movies more popular on IMDB than Letterboxd.

• Movies more popular on Letterboxd than IMDB.

• Movies with better reviews on Letterboxd than IMDB.

• Movies with better reviews on IMDB than Letterboxd.

IMDB is the 800 Pound Gorilla with a Massive Review Base

The Internet Movie Database was founded in 1990, which is inconceivable for a website still in existence. The site eventually known as IMDB began as a series of Usenet group message boards and later evolved into a meticulously maintained filmography of actors and actresses. In 1993, the catalog of actors and actresses moved onto the fledgling World Wide Web under the name Cardiff Internet Movie Database. I could go on about IMDB's (somewhat surprising) history, but the main takeaway is that the site is old - prehistoric by internet standards. By comparison, Letterboxd was established in 2011, which still feels old but less old than a digital artifact created outside the World Wide Web (on whatever a Usenet group is).

As a result, IMDB's review volume is significantly greater than Letterboxd. On average, IMDB reviews outnumber Letterbox rating counts 3 to 1. 

Take The Shawshank Redemption as a benchmark for operational scale; Shawshank features ‎719,670 reviews on Letterboxd compared to 2,673,825 IMDB ratings. Assuming each vote is one human (and there are no bots), the Shawshank voter differential is larger than the populations of Idaho, West Virginia, and Latvia, respectively. That's many more humans with many more opinions - for better or worse. 

When we look at IMDB’s highest rating count films versus Letterboxd’s corresponding review volume, we can get a sense of differences in scale:

Movies More Popular on IMDB than Letterboxd

IMDB is the masses, and the masses like sequels, superheroes, and sci-fi (and there is nothing wrong with that). I would lovingly term this cohort "movies best watched on the big screen." In short, these are big-budget films of above-average quality, loathed by lovers of arthouse cinema and enjoyed by most people. 

Of the movies on this list: 

• 75% could be considered action or sci-fi. 

• 25% are based on original screenplays (not adapted from source material).

• 45% are part of planned film franchises. 

• 25% are superhero movies (which is lower than expected). 

• 100% are English language, which is a distinction that sounds obvious until we delve into the Letterboxd popularity outliers. 

Movies More Popular on Letterboxd than IMDB

Letterboxd users prefer stories written directly for the screen (not adapted), foreign language films, horror movies, and Wong Kar-wai. Don't know Wong Kar-wai? Then you're probably not a Letterboxd user. Wong Kar-wai is a Hong Kong-based film director known for nonlinear narratives, atmospheric music, and vivid cinematography involving bold, saturated colors. His films are slow-moving character-driven dramas of incredible aesthetic beauty, often featuring minimal dialogue. In my first year of film school, they showed us three Wong Kar-wai movies (more than any other director), so Letterboxd's reverence for Kar-wai's auteurship tracks. 

Of the movies on this list:

• 75% were written directly for the screen. 

• 50% are not in English.

• 20% are horror movies. 

• 15% were directed by Wong Kar-wai.      

Movies with Better Reviews on Letterboxd than IMDB

When considering divergence in average star ratings, it appears Letterboxd users prefer foreign-language films, American indie darlings, stories focusing on marginalized communities, and cult classics. Moonlight topping this list isn't surprising, as it meets two of the abovementioned criteria. But I'm a Cheerleader and Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me ranking so high is surprising. Both films are considered cult classics, but their popularity is nowhere near that of better-known midnight movies like Rocky Horror Picture Show, Eraserhead, The Room, or Pink Flamingos.  

Of the movies on this list:

• 75% were written directly for the screen. 

• 55% are not in English.

• 20% tell the story of underrepresented groups.   

Analysis Pt. 5: Movies with Better Reviews on IMDB than Letterboxd

When we look at movies of increased acclaim on IMDB, there is (again) an emphasis on adapted works and franchise films. We've already covered the prevalence of adaptions, so I'll focus on another peculiar trend of this outlier set - the high concentration of Best Picture winners. Six of the films on this list won Best Picture (Green Book, Gone with the Wind, Braveheart, American Beauty, Gladiator, and A Beautiful Mind), with three coming in successive years. My best guess is that The Oscars (considered a navel-gazing celebration of elitism by many) may be too mainstream for Letterboxd users. The only Best Picture winner found on either of the previously-detailed Letterboxd lists is Moonlight, which endured a highly awkward and forever-viral gaffe when crowned winner at the infamous 2016 ceremony.   

Of the movies on this list: 

• 30% are based on original screenplays (not adapted from source material).

• 45% are part of planned film franchises. 

• 30% won Best Picture.

• 100% are English language.

Final Thoughts: Letterboxd is a Nice Thing, But Will it Last?

Is Letterboxd some new-fangled IMDB-killer? No. IMDB's exhaustive filmography and overwhelming content library (screen captures, posters, trailers, user reviews, etc.) guarantee its place as the defacto online hub for film and television. As a product, IMDB is unmatched. But IMDB neglects the rudimentary, no-frills social experience of loving and sharing culture, prioritizing its role as an encyclopedia over cultural connectivity.     

The internet's early days were fragmented and anarchic. Decentralized connectedness allowed those with niche interests to foster subcultures (message boards, chat rooms, Second Life, etc.). Web 2.0 saw the platformization of the internet as a sleeker, more efficient, and more centralized internet emerged. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Yelp, Tripadvisor, and IMDB became monopolies in their respective domains. These sites provided ease and abundance, and it was awesome. 

But there were problems. At this point, issues inherent to mega-platforms have been well-detailed: consumers forfeit privacy, labor loses bargaining power, and industries border on anti-competitive - to name a few issues. But there have also been smaller losses, defeats less significant than democracy eroding or liberty infringement. Centralized platforms simultaneously standardize and polarize our behaviors and tastes, making digital relationships and cultural ties more complicated. It's increasingly difficult to just nerd out on the internet.

Letterboxd is commendable in its virtue. The platform has cultivated something unique in its ability to promote connection through shared interest (all while maintaining positive vibes). Using the site harkens back to the days of web 1.0 - it's simple, a bit chaotic, and allows you pure self-expression separate from other internet bullshit. And yet Letterboxd feels too good to be true. It's a nice thing, and late-stage capitalism typically drives nice things toward extinction or the norm. Let's hope the site can defy the odds and avoid a Hollywood ending.

Want to chat about data and statistics? Have an interesting data project? Just want to say hi? Email [email protected]