For the third time in a month, someone has moved all of Mike B. Anderson's supervising director credits for the Simpsons from the director's section to the Second Unit Director section. Can we get them moved back (again) and reach out to the person that keeps doing this?
Adrian, Champion
Posted 1 year ago
Will, Official Rep
Hi Adrian,
Please see Eboy's response on https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/somebody-moved-all-mike-b-andersons-supervising-director-to-second-unit-director-or-assistant-director-section
Normally we would list these credits as director, however this case is quite unique. We have purposefully chosen to keep these credits in the assistant director section based on the responsibilities of the role as it relates to the title in question, given our knowledge of the situation. Although this isn't ideal for consistency, it is the correct way to list the credits in relation to the responsibilities of the position for this show.
I hope this helps to explain the decision and apologies for any confusion caused by our responses.
Regards,
Will
Please see Eboy's response on https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/somebody-moved-all-mike-b-andersons-supervising-director-to-second-unit-director-or-assistant-director-section
Normally we would list these credits as director, however this case is quite unique. We have purposefully chosen to keep these credits in the assistant director section based on the responsibilities of the role as it relates to the title in question, given our knowledge of the situation. Although this isn't ideal for consistency, it is the correct way to list the credits in relation to the responsibilities of the position for this show.
I hope this helps to explain the decision and apologies for any confusion caused by our responses.
Regards,
Will
Adrian, Champion
Sorry Will,
This is a terrible decision. It is these inconsistencies that make me want to give up contributing to IMDb. Either "supervising director" is or is not a director credit. There really should not be a case by case basis because no contributor is going to know how to correctly listed it. I'm not going to be the only one that watches The Simpsons and see that "supervising director" is listed as a Second Unit Director and the watch Bob's Burgers, that directly follows it on Fox, and see that the "supervising director" is listed under directors. Even if the case for Anderson is unique, it should be listed under director for consistency's sake.
This is a terrible decision. It is these inconsistencies that make me want to give up contributing to IMDb. Either "supervising director" is or is not a director credit. There really should not be a case by case basis because no contributor is going to know how to correctly listed it. I'm not going to be the only one that watches The Simpsons and see that "supervising director" is listed as a Second Unit Director and the watch Bob's Burgers, that directly follows it on Fox, and see that the "supervising director" is listed under directors. Even if the case for Anderson is unique, it should be listed under director for consistency's sake.
Will, Official Rep
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for the feedback, however our position remains the same and is taken in direct relation to this role and how it relates to The Simpsons.
Regards,
Will
Thanks for the feedback, however our position remains the same and is taken in direct relation to this role and how it relates to The Simpsons.
Regards,
Will
Adrian, Champion
IMDb is a crowd sourced data input system. Without any consistency in how the data should be entered, how do you expect people to know how to correctly input the data? Exceptions would be different if all the data were inputted by people with intimate knowledge of the shows/people they are entering. But that is not the case and exceptions like this frustrate people that try to input data. (Say with the stuntmen who are credited in the cast of Get Out.)
(Edited)
Will, Official Rep
Thanks Adrian. We appreciate that this isn't fair on users who do not have the access to this additional information. The responsibilities of this job role can vary wildly, which makes it difficult to delineate and enforce a policy to house these credits on a case by case basis, whilst expecting users to consistently follow it. In light of this we have reverted the credits to the director section to be consistent with the way we store the rest of these credits on IMDb.
Thanks again,
Will
Thanks again,
Will
I hate when data is duplicated, but the cases similar to this one might be better processed as follows:
- The credited work should be submitted as it is in titles, but with attribute "in titles only";
- The factual work should be submitted as "uncredited";
- The reasons for both of the above should be explained in trivia section.
Col Needham, Official Rep
Thanks for the feedback; it has nothing to do with how "modern" any system is here.
Adrian's point neatly summarises the issue. Your suggestions are interesting (thanks) but not particularly practical and could open the floodgates to all kinds of "I know I am credited as <x> but really I did <y>" claims which would, by and large, be unverifiable, unscalable and open to fraud. Sorry.
Adrian's point neatly summarises the issue. Your suggestions are interesting (thanks) but not particularly practical and could open the floodgates to all kinds of "I know I am credited as <x> but really I did <y>" claims which would, by and large, be unverifiable, unscalable and open to fraud. Sorry.
Col Needham, thank you. Indeed, I think the same. The above sugg of mine resulted from the attempt of IMDb staff to overcome this problem other ways. If they are going to proceed as such, it should be better done as I suggested, IMHO.
Will, Official Rep
Hi Adrian,
Just to let you know we've documented that supervising directors belong in the director section in the submission guides now.
Regards,
Will
Just to let you know we've documented that supervising directors belong in the director section in the submission guides now.
Regards,
Will
Just to clarify: all the ”series director”, ”supervising director”, ”main director” etc type of credits belong to the ”Director” department (except certain exceptions like ”The Simpsons”)?
How about credits like ”animation director” or ”voice director”? These imply that the person has directed certain sections of the production (like animation, voice acting etc), but not the whole thing.
Also, what is the ”rule” in the cases where both the ”supervising director” and ”director” (the latter being the director of the particular episode) are credited? Both are added to ”Director” department?
( Older thread: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi... )
How about credits like ”animation director” or ”voice director”? These imply that the person has directed certain sections of the production (like animation, voice acting etc), but not the whole thing.
Also, what is the ”rule” in the cases where both the ”supervising director” and ”director” (the latter being the director of the particular episode) are credited? Both are added to ”Director” department?
( Older thread: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi... )
(Edited)
Additionally, I'd like to point out that "Supervising" may appear in any section as predicative not only to "director". When a system is modern enough, it should provide such things (supervising, executive, assistant, line, and so on and so forth) as option to add anywhere as additional attribute when submitting data.
(Edited)
