I added sci-fi as a genre for Happy Death day and got it turned down: "Reason: Unable to verify. Your contribution has been declined. We have been unable to verify your contribution.
Unfortunately we were unable to accept your submission as we were unable to verify the information provided."
Umm ... IF YOU LOOK UP THE FILM ON ROTTEN TOMATOES,"SCI-FI" IS THE FIFTH WORD IN THEIR SUMMARY OF THE FILM (after the title). In fact, it's hard to read about the film online without it being identified as sci-fi.
Incorrect genre IDs are incredibly frustrating for lovers of the genres involved. Submitted genre corrections should not be dismissed WITHOUT ANY RESEARCH at all, as this one obviously was. If this film hadn't gotten a sequel that WAS correctly identified as sci-fi, I might have never known about it. As a result, it's been omitted from my indie sci-fi list which has 36,000+ views. Which pisses me off.
Unfortunately we were unable to accept your submission as we were unable to verify the information provided."
Umm ... IF YOU LOOK UP THE FILM ON ROTTEN TOMATOES,"SCI-FI" IS THE FIFTH WORD IN THEIR SUMMARY OF THE FILM (after the title). In fact, it's hard to read about the film online without it being identified as sci-fi.
Incorrect genre IDs are incredibly frustrating for lovers of the genres involved. Submitted genre corrections should not be dismissed WITHOUT ANY RESEARCH at all, as this one obviously was. If this film hadn't gotten a sequel that WAS correctly identified as sci-fi, I might have never known about it. As a result, it's been omitted from my indie sci-fi list which has 36,000+ views. Which pisses me off.
Posted 1 year ago
Will, Official Rep
Hi Eric M. Van,
I haven't seen the movie which makes it a little difficult to comment, however please see our definition:
Sci-Fi
Numerous scenes, and/or the entire background for the setting of the narrative, should be based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets. Subjective.
From all accounts it looks like this is a similar case as that of Groundhog Day, which we list as a fantasy, as the repetition of the day is not described as being caused by a scientific event.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Will
I haven't seen the movie which makes it a little difficult to comment, however please see our definition:
Sci-Fi
Numerous scenes, and/or the entire background for the setting of the narrative, should be based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets. Subjective.
From all accounts it looks like this is a similar case as that of Groundhog Day, which we list as a fantasy, as the repetition of the day is not described as being caused by a scientific event.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Will
Will, Official Rep
Hi Eric,
Thanks for your response. We have our own rules regarding genre definitions, which are explained in the guide included above. As the first film doesn't explain this as a science fiction style event then it shouldn't be listed as a sci-fi, regardless of how the events are later explained in the sequel.
Regards,
Will
Thanks for your response. We have our own rules regarding genre definitions, which are explained in the guide included above. As the first film doesn't explain this as a science fiction style event then it shouldn't be listed as a sci-fi, regardless of how the events are later explained in the sequel.
Regards,
Will
Will, there's so much wrong with this answer that I hardly know where to start.
First, you're completely dodging the initial complaint. The genre addition was not turned down for the reason you now assert: that on scrutiny, the film doesn't fit the definition in the guidelines, the opinion of others to the contrary (which would be a legitimate response to someone adding sci-fi to Dr. Strangelove). It was turned down because someone claimed they couldn't verify it when in fact it was verified in the first five words written about the film at the next most popular movie web site after IMDB. Maybe the person evaluating this had a choice between two reasons for rejections (each with boilerplate text) and accidentally clicked on the wrong one, but if so, that they didn't fix their mistake just makes them lazy rather than incompetent.
Next, your definition says nothing about a film needing to explain it is science fiction, as opposed to just being science fiction. (You appear to have just made that up in order to make whoever processed my submission correct by sheer accident.) And in fact, most science fiction does not explain that it is sci-fi. No one ever says "we used science to do this." Viewers (or readers) figure out from context that the explanation for the events is scientific rather than supernatural, and this is seldom difficult. Apparently enough critics who saw the film did so for RT to classify it (correctly!) as sci-fi. And note that the hook of the movie, the time-loop, needed to be characterized in their first sentnce as either "sci-fi" or "fantastic." And they chose the former.
But the biggest issue that I have with your answer is that you seem to be unaware of what genres are and what purpose they serve (even though I alluded to this quite directly). Genres are defined by the use of characteristic tropes, settings, themes, and so on, and their purpose is to identify narratives to consumers who like those elements.
You say that the film "shouldn't be listed as sci-fi" becase it doesn't meet a (nonexistent and nonsensical) guideline criterion, but what purpose would that serve? All it does is hide the film from searches by people who would especially like it because it is sci-fi (like myself). People who watch the movie because it's been classified as sci-fi will not be disappointed that it isn't. That is your ultimate criterion.
Science fiction is notoriously hard to define, and your current definition is actually pretty good. But the key word is the last one: subjective. And that's because there are movies that depend on the audience recognizing that the movie is sci-fi when it's not totally obvious. And many sci-fi fans (myself included) actually get more pleasure, not less, when we find a flick like this; we like to figure things out. It's cool when a film is definitely sci-fi, but not obviously so.
I also want to note that I'm not promiscuous about classifying films as sci-fi at IMDB. When I did V1.0 of my indie sci-fi list, I found three films incorrectly tagged (Fetching Cody, Interstate 60, and I'm a Cyborg But That's OK) and fixed them. I found their misclassification somewhat annoying, given the huge number of films I was trying to watch. But it's even more annoying to learn that I've overlooked a film because it wasn't tagged as sci-fi when it should have been.
First, you're completely dodging the initial complaint. The genre addition was not turned down for the reason you now assert: that on scrutiny, the film doesn't fit the definition in the guidelines, the opinion of others to the contrary (which would be a legitimate response to someone adding sci-fi to Dr. Strangelove). It was turned down because someone claimed they couldn't verify it when in fact it was verified in the first five words written about the film at the next most popular movie web site after IMDB. Maybe the person evaluating this had a choice between two reasons for rejections (each with boilerplate text) and accidentally clicked on the wrong one, but if so, that they didn't fix their mistake just makes them lazy rather than incompetent.
Next, your definition says nothing about a film needing to explain it is science fiction, as opposed to just being science fiction. (You appear to have just made that up in order to make whoever processed my submission correct by sheer accident.) And in fact, most science fiction does not explain that it is sci-fi. No one ever says "we used science to do this." Viewers (or readers) figure out from context that the explanation for the events is scientific rather than supernatural, and this is seldom difficult. Apparently enough critics who saw the film did so for RT to classify it (correctly!) as sci-fi. And note that the hook of the movie, the time-loop, needed to be characterized in their first sentnce as either "sci-fi" or "fantastic." And they chose the former.
But the biggest issue that I have with your answer is that you seem to be unaware of what genres are and what purpose they serve (even though I alluded to this quite directly). Genres are defined by the use of characteristic tropes, settings, themes, and so on, and their purpose is to identify narratives to consumers who like those elements.
You say that the film "shouldn't be listed as sci-fi" becase it doesn't meet a (nonexistent and nonsensical) guideline criterion, but what purpose would that serve? All it does is hide the film from searches by people who would especially like it because it is sci-fi (like myself). People who watch the movie because it's been classified as sci-fi will not be disappointed that it isn't. That is your ultimate criterion.
Science fiction is notoriously hard to define, and your current definition is actually pretty good. But the key word is the last one: subjective. And that's because there are movies that depend on the audience recognizing that the movie is sci-fi when it's not totally obvious. And many sci-fi fans (myself included) actually get more pleasure, not less, when we find a flick like this; we like to figure things out. It's cool when a film is definitely sci-fi, but not obviously so.
I also want to note that I'm not promiscuous about classifying films as sci-fi at IMDB. When I did V1.0 of my indie sci-fi list, I found three films incorrectly tagged (Fetching Cody, Interstate 60, and I'm a Cyborg But That's OK) and fixed them. I found their misclassification somewhat annoying, given the huge number of films I was trying to watch. But it's even more annoying to learn that I've overlooked a film because it wasn't tagged as sci-fi when it should have been.
Your asking IMDb to use a revisionist history concept.
Revisionist history is just DEAD WRONG. Always has been. Always will be.
Facts are facts. Revising fact no longer makes it fact!
No amount of well versed words on your part is going to change "The Facts"
No mater how well thought out your argument is, it is based on a faulty concept.
Revisionism!
It is what it was at the time of creation. You can reference it. But none of the facts existed at the time of inception. So it "IS" an accurate representation at the time it was created.
This is not even denied by you. You state as much several times, and acknowledge it.
IMDb's mission statement.............
IMDb aims to be the most comprehensive and reliable source of information on movies, TV and celebrities. We are committed to accuracy and it is our longstanding policy not to alter or remove correct factual information from our records.
End of story.
You are beating a dead horse here. You will never convince them to change it because their logic is solid here. Fact prevails at the time of the titles release. To alter it negates the facts. Read the statement again. Your newer/later information is definitely correct. No dispute here or from IMDb. To undo a correct fact because of it is ignoring fact. This they will not do. You can add a trivia item to the title if you like. It would probably be accepted.
But no genre addition is ever going to happen.
Cheers Eric
Ed
Revisionist history is just DEAD WRONG. Always has been. Always will be.
Facts are facts. Revising fact no longer makes it fact!
No amount of well versed words on your part is going to change "The Facts"
No mater how well thought out your argument is, it is based on a faulty concept.
Revisionism!
It is what it was at the time of creation. You can reference it. But none of the facts existed at the time of inception. So it "IS" an accurate representation at the time it was created.
This is not even denied by you. You state as much several times, and acknowledge it.
IMDb's mission statement.............
IMDb aims to be the most comprehensive and reliable source of information on movies, TV and celebrities. We are committed to accuracy and it is our longstanding policy not to alter or remove correct factual information from our records.
End of story.
You are beating a dead horse here. You will never convince them to change it because their logic is solid here. Fact prevails at the time of the titles release. To alter it negates the facts. Read the statement again. Your newer/later information is definitely correct. No dispute here or from IMDb. To undo a correct fact because of it is ignoring fact. This they will not do. You can add a trivia item to the title if you like. It would probably be accepted.
But no genre addition is ever going to happen.
Cheers Eric
Ed
(Edited)
Personal note and opinion.
I'd be pissed if this popped up in a sci fi search. This is Not Traditional Sci Fi.
Not even close.
And one last thing, calling the staff Incompetent was a little over the top.
I'd be pissed if this popped up in a sci fi search. This is Not Traditional Sci Fi.
Not even close.
And one last thing, calling the staff Incompetent was a little over the top.
(Edited)
1) Ed, You're absolutely right that facts are facts. "Facts prevail at the time of the titles [sic] release." How true.
The fact is that the movie was released and immediately identified by Rotten Tomatoes as sci-fi.
How many times can I mention this and have it completely ignored?
2) Re the personal note, have you ever actually conducted an advanced search to find sci-fi films you were unaware of?
That you threw in "traditional" in your complaint pretty much disqualifies you from the class of people who would care. The audience who cares, if they discriminate at all between "traditional" sci-fi and untraditional, prefer the latter.
3) An IMDB staffer claimed that they couldn't verify the film was sci-fi when it's the first thing that the #2 English-language movie web site in the world said about it. That's a mind-bogglingly bad performance. It's literally laughably bad.
You may be right that "incompetent" might not be the right word, because that's usually applied to a general skill level. But it's a given that I have no idea who did this and couldn't possibly have any sense of their general skill level. If I went to a Starbucks and my order was filled and was so wrong it beggared belief, what word should I use to characterize it?
"Incompetent" and "inept" can refer to acts under certain circumstances, and this is clearly one of them.
The fact is that the movie was released and immediately identified by Rotten Tomatoes as sci-fi.
How many times can I mention this and have it completely ignored?
2) Re the personal note, have you ever actually conducted an advanced search to find sci-fi films you were unaware of?
That you threw in "traditional" in your complaint pretty much disqualifies you from the class of people who would care. The audience who cares, if they discriminate at all between "traditional" sci-fi and untraditional, prefer the latter.
3) An IMDB staffer claimed that they couldn't verify the film was sci-fi when it's the first thing that the #2 English-language movie web site in the world said about it. That's a mind-bogglingly bad performance. It's literally laughably bad.
You may be right that "incompetent" might not be the right word, because that's usually applied to a general skill level. But it's a given that I have no idea who did this and couldn't possibly have any sense of their general skill level. If I went to a Starbucks and my order was filled and was so wrong it beggared belief, what word should I use to characterize it?
"Incompetent" and "inept" can refer to acts under certain circumstances, and this is clearly one of them.
(Edited)
