Change attribute "uncredited" to "No Screen Credit".

  • 2
  • Idea
  • Updated 2 years ago
  • (Edited)
Hi IMDB community,

I have a proposal regarding the attribute “uncredited”, change to “No Screen Credit” or NSC for short.

I note the attribute “uncredited” discussion comes up from time to time and for different reasons and I believe this suggested change will also help with those others concerns.

My reasoning is ‘Uncredited” often refers to someone listing themselves but IMDB not substantiating the credit (viewed either in the Credits roll or official documentation) and therefore “Uncredited" is currently applied.
However the term “Uncredited” also can imply a misleading detrimental connotation, in that someone worked on a project left it or was fired and therefore was (denied) not awarded a screen credit, a term known in the industry normally as “Uncredited”.

In my own case, some of my early credits from the 80's/90’s where from a time when credits where brief and only heads of departments where given a screen credit, other team member were just not considered.

I’m more than grateful to IMDB to allow my listings even if they do have the attribute “Uncredited” but would much prefer the term “No Screen Credit” (if an attribute is to be applied).

In short, Isn’t the term “No Screen credit” more descriptive anyway? e.g. Someone worked on a project, there’s normally enough public record to support the listing but they received “No Screen Credit”.

I’m also sure “Uncredited” is a redundancy from the early days of IMDB and would hope it’s time to upgrade/ improve that note (attribute).

"Like" this message as a sign of supporting a change (uncredited) to “ No Screen Credit” or add thoughts below.


Kind regards
Julian
Photo of Julian Parry

Julian Parry

  • 6 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 2
Photo of Stephen N Russell

Stephen N Russell

  • 826 Posts
  • 1209 Reply Likes
Makes sense, I say Yes, since I read in prior IMDbs  of some actor in scene BUT no credit given.
Photo of Julian Parry

Julian Parry

  • 6 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Thank you Stephen for your feedback. I make comment to your note below in reply to Nikolay. Best Jp 
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 3071 Posts
  • 4019 Reply Likes
Hello, Julian. 

A very interesting subject which certainly needs more attention. I would say that for younger people (myself included) "uncredited" is already cemented in the IMDb sense of that word, so probably changing it now might spur additional confusion. I would not go as far as to say that IMDb managed to completely replace the original meaning, but it certainly popularised the term in a more positive sense, promoting the fact that appearances and jobs matter, credited or not. Also it should be noted that Filmography entries on IMDb are called listings, not credits, so there's no redundancy per se (although I must admit, a lot of people do use "credits" for individual entries and I sometimes slip into that as well). 

In my humble opinion there should be a few more additional attributes for specific cases. Not that you can't create such, but having a few more or less commonly used descriptors might have made the situation about attributes a bit less confusing. 
Photo of Julian Parry

Julian Parry

  • 6 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Hi Nikolay, Great to read your thoughts and agree “uncredited” probably is cemented into IMDB and maybe it’s already beyond a simple computer code change to alter the millions of listings.
And yes, maybe “uncredited” is the correct term in some cases, so I do like like your thinking that maybe instead of a complete replacement of the word more options could be made available in the attribute selection. 

Like the comment above by Stephen in the case of an actor in a scene, but not given credit (say an oversight) or say a special star guest making an appearance just for fun but asking no acknowledgement, their name would appear ‘“uncredited”. Or (No Screen Credit). 

I have a couple of examples that reinforcing the addition options idea, but lets take 20th Century fox 1985 “Aliens”. 
It’s well documented that the fifteen strong UK visual effects team were left off the films credits by individual name. Instead those crew members have had to live with the strange single front card credit at the head of the film “Certain Visual effects created by the L.A. Effects group”. Which in the case of the IMDB listing attribute, if more options were available like  “Shared Credit” Or “Shared Company Credit As (add the company name)”. 

Here in my own case of “Aliens”  “No Screen Credit” is more correct over “uncredited” (because of the single company front card credit).

Thank you for your feedback - Best JP 
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 3071 Posts
  • 4019 Reply Likes
Hello again, Julian. 

Actually that's more then a valid point and probably will make a good addition to guidelines - collectives do have share credits. In case of some bands appearing in movies we can basically list band foremost and then individual members with an attribute "(as Band Name)". I have a feeling that certain company credits should be listed in the same way. In fact it happens from time to time, I myself was once credited as "PP Studio" (my "production company", currently on an amateur level, but we are aspiring) for original music for some reason so sometimes company credits are also credits for people involved. 

By the way, there is another interesting uncredited case with Aliens - James Remar, was an actor originally cast as Hicks and though he was replaced early into filming he actually appears in one shot from the back which should constitute for some filmography listing. I've collected a lot of such cases and I'm slowly but surely instating them as filmography entries. I am a bit proud that I was able to instate such a credit for Eric Stoltz: while he was replaced by Michael J. Fox in Back to the Future (1985) he can still be seen in a few shots driving the car in quite dangerous situations, which is now rightfully listed as "stunt driver". 
Photo of Julian Parry

Julian Parry

  • 6 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Hi Nikolay, 
Sterling work regarding the original cast filmography and yes I recall the whole Remar incident back at the time. 
Your notes and pointers welcome. 
Regards Jp 
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 6795 Posts
  • 8336 Reply Likes
I don't know if they should change the phrase, but it's certainly true that many users, especially cast and crew, have misunderstood it or complained about its use.
Photo of Julian Parry

Julian Parry

  • 6 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Hi Peter,
Is this a "for" or "against" the idea? 
And yes I note theres 1500 odd posts of the subject "uncredited" hence my suggestion to clarify that attribute (which is normally left blank) but as you note/refer their have been misunderstandings and complaints by cast & crew. By definition theres seems an issue.  
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 6795 Posts
  • 8336 Reply Likes
Neither for nor against, but it wouldn't hurt to consider it.
Photo of Bradley Kent

Bradley Kent

  • 192 Posts
  • 239 Reply Likes
Years ago, I suggested this same thing, and that suggestion got nowhere.  "no screen credit" is much more objective and factual. "uncredited" is just not specific enough, and does not represent the truth.

Screen credits, usually at the end of a title, are the main standard for IMDb listing.  They are "screen credits," not "uncredited credits."

Language makes a difference.
Photo of Julian Parry

Julian Parry

  • 6 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Hi Bradley, 
I'm impressed how your two short paragraphs sum-up my original note - great feedback, thank you!
I've been on imdb from the early days, also a paying member of imdb pro since its start and petitioned re this subject (via the imdb standard contact method) like you getting no where. As a paying member (imdb pro) it does somewhat smart that this request is overlooked. 
Regards Jp