For discussion - should a person who is "credited" by a namecheck in the commentary of a documentary be regardeed as "uncredited"

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 2 years ago
  • Answered
  • (Edited)
I'm trying to canvass people's opinions about a policy of IMDB.

Suppose you have two documentaries in which various interviewees appear. In one, they are mentioned by name and job title in the commentary or by the presenter; in the other, they are additionally given an on-screen caption mentioning that same name and job title. It may be a stylistic whim of the director as to whether or not he chooses to give on-screen credits to interviewees, and is probably not a measure of how much they contributed to the programme.

By current IMDB rules, the first set of interviewees are regarded as "uncredited" and therefore their credits are (a) hidden if they have no other credits, and (b) listed alphabetically rather than in order of appearance. In the latter case, they are visible and listed in credit order (order of appearance).

Do people think that IMDB is right to make this distinction, or should all acknowledged appearances - a mention either in speech or in print - be regarded as being credited?

My thinking is that they should all be regarded as credited and that "uncredited" should be reserved for people whose existence is not acknowledged in any way - eg seen in the background; no "speaking part"; fleeting, unacknowledged glimpse in archive footage etc.

Discuss... :-)
Photo of Martin

Martin

  • 279 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 5596 Posts
  • 6321 Reply Likes
I could go either way, but like you, I think IMDb policy based on previous discussions and decisions is the opposite of what you say above, so the first step should be to clarify that.
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 5596 Posts
  • 6321 Reply Likes
Here's one previous discussion in this forum. Ironically, it's about the same series as your recent post:
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1035 Posts
  • 1140 Reply Likes
The commentary is not part of the movie, so I say no. Personally, I never listen to commentary and it would not be present in the original format of the documentary.

Also, under your own guideline, "uncredited should be reserved for people whose existence is not acknowledged in any way", a person only acknowledged in commentary is not acknowledged in any way in the actual documentary.

This is also problematic: "eg seen in the background; no speaking part". Currently, Ron Howard is appearing unbilled in episodes of This Is Us. He has many speaking parts but it is just an extended cameo (maybe so he doesn't have to draw scale salary for being a credited actor.)
(Edited)
Photo of Joel

Joel, Employee

  • 831 Posts
  • 931 Reply Likes
Hi Martin,

Thanks for the post.

As mentioned by Peter, this discussion has already been had here. Please refer here to find the answers to your questions.

Cheers,

Joel
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1309 Posts
  • 1411 Reply Likes
Martin said that ”...by current IMDB rules, the first set of interviewees are regarded as "uncredited”.”

This is not really true, since if the person is introduced/mentioned in speech, it shouldn’t be ”uncredited”:

”Documentary subjects are presumed to be credited if they are identified on screen or verbally during their appearance."
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1035 Posts
  • 1140 Reply Likes
As far as I can tell, he's talking about being introduced in the commentary (which is not available in all formats), so this isn't the same as being introduced by speech in the actual movie. Maybe, I'm wrong.
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1309 Posts
  • 1411 Reply Likes
Audio commentary? I thought he was just using the ”commentary” term, meaning narration or similar. Which is usually the case with documentaries.
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1035 Posts
  • 1140 Reply Likes
Maybe. But directors don't always appear in the documentaries they film. The usage of the word "commentary" for me has a specific meaning when it comes to movies, meaning the commentary that started as an extra feature on laserdiscs and carried on into DVDs and BluRays.
Photo of Martin

Martin

  • 279 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
Apologies. I meant in the narration or piece to camera by the presenter, not any later commentary by director or actors.
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1035 Posts
  • 1140 Reply Likes
Then, that case is covered in the cast guide as Eboy has posted.

https://contribute.imdb.com/updates/guide/cast#castorders