Should this title even exist?

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • Answered
This isn't a movie or anything but a packaging of movies into a DVD set. It does not seem like something that should be listed on IMDb as all the 50 movies should be listed separately.

Killer Creature Features: 50 Movie Mega Pack

Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1273 Posts
  • 1517 Reply Likes

Posted 2 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1633 Posts
  • 2083 Reply Likes
Definitely no. There are loads of similar DVD releases with different films on a one DVD package.
Photo of GMJ

GMJ, Champion

  • 3202 Posts
  • 5664 Reply Likes
Adrian,

In my opinion, a repackaged DVD of past film titles should not have an IMDb title page.

However, this information should be included in each movie title's Distributors section with the distributor name, year, region, type (DVD) and attribute (Killer Creature Features: 50 Movie Mega Pack). 
(Edited)
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1633 Posts
  • 2083 Reply Likes
DVD distributors should have attributes like that? Is that listed in some FAQ? At least it sounds a bit overkill to me. If some film is released in multiple DVD collections/double features/volumes/special editions/gift sets/etc (like many of these probably are, since some are most likely in public domain), this could be tricky.
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1576 Posts
  • 2569 Reply Likes
I think it should be a list instead of a title.
Unfortunately, lists are not searchable within IMDb.
But using google "Killer Creature Features: 50 Movie Mega Pack site:imdb.com/list", found:
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls066260313/
Looks like the same list as under the Connections section of the title Adrian found.

From the help:
Title eligibility (nothing prohibitive here), and refers us to ...
Title Formatting guide (don't see anything here either)
hmmm...
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 3120 Posts
  • 4103 Reply Likes
A Mill Creek 50-in-1 DVD is certainly not eligible as a separate title on IMDb: it adds practically nothing new to movies themselves and just compiles them as a multi-feature bargain. 
Photo of cinephile

cinephile

  • 1236 Posts
  • 1907 Reply Likes

No, I have a 50 Movie Pack Horror Classics, it is not listed on IMDb.
Photo of cinephile

cinephile

  • 1236 Posts
  • 1907 Reply Likes
Photo of cinephile

cinephile

  • 1236 Posts
  • 1907 Reply Likes
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10844584/?ref_=adv_li_tt  991h

he probably forgot to turn off his camera.
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 3120 Posts
  • 4103 Reply Likes
cinephile, Marco Romano is legit. I know the guy, he is a very eccentric experimental filmmaker. 

In fact, I'm not sure this very abstract movie even used a camera: it's mostly a very slow animation/edit. 
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 3120 Posts
  • 4103 Reply Likes
bderoes out of those some titles might have legitimacy, upon closer look: 

Mad Monster Rally (2009) - has host segments filmed for the release specifically.
Edison: The Invention of the Movies (2005) - plot summary specifically mentions it being spliced with interviews and commentary apart from just being compiled)
Early Women Filmmakers (2017) - this one is a concept anthology rather than box-set, it has three production companies attached to it which seemingly worked on new materials and compiling the old ones.
Hulk Hogan: The Ultimate Anthology (2006) - similarly an edited anthology release.

Overall, direct-to-video titles, just as film serials cannot be split even if they were divided in parts, so listings like that sometimes would suffice and with astronomic runtimes (an example which has more than enough eligibility for inclusion). That is not to say that most of examples here are simply box-sets which should be split as info on respective movie pages. Just that these four have more (basic) eligibility points.
(Edited)
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1576 Posts
  • 2569 Reply Likes
Nicolay - Whoever has been posting the 50 Movie MegaPacks used the "direct to dvd" terminology, and that is a misnomer. My understanding: "direct to dvd" means that is the initial release of the title. All the 50 Movie MegaPacks contain films that were theatrically released.

The new materials contained in the sets you cite would qualify as dvd extras in my mind. For instance:
Early Women Filmmakers (2017)
can be ordered here:
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B06X42G2RT/
and the product description says (in part): 
International in scope, this groundbreaking collection features over 10 hours of material, comprised of 25 films spanning 1902-1943, including many rare titles not widely available until now, from shorts to feature films, live action to animation, commercial narratives to experimental works. 
And here's my list of its content from a couple of years ago:
Early Women Filmmakers: An International Anthology
I don't see what having multiple production companies has to do with it. 

https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B0006Q93LA/
is the product page for 
Edison: The Invention of the Movies (2005)
which says, in part:
Edison - The Invention of the Movies is a four-disc treasure trove of 140 of the first moving pictures ever seen, spanning the birth of cinema from 1891-1918. ... over two hours of interviews with scholars and archivists.
Here's the image of the back of the box. I can't tell if the 2+ hours is included in the 730 minute runtime, or in addition. Either way, sounds like dvd extras / commentary tracks to me. (133 of the 134 titles on the Connections page are labeled Shorts, and the last shows 80 minutes.)

For Mad Monster Rally (2009 Video), product page https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B002BFBAYW/ has no product description (just specs) and a blend of single-title reviews. The one review about the box set is here, and says: "Mad Monster Rally is a collection of three DVD's available separately from Retromedia." and then lists the 3 films on each of the 3 dvds. So it turns out that 2 of the 11 titles listed on the Connections page are themselves just dvds:
Morella Presents Graveyard Theater: Morella's All-Nite Spooktacular (2007) (Video)
Morella Presents Graveyard Theater: Blood Vision (2008) (Video)
This looks to be just a box set.

I'll let someone else analyze Hulk Hogan: The Ultimate Anthology (2006)
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B000GG4XX8/
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 17831 Posts
  • 20239 Reply Likes
A Definitely No, Too!
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1576 Posts
  • 2569 Reply Likes
I'm re-watching the first disc of Early Women Filmmakers (2017), and I wonder if all the questioned titles in this thread are legit under the following premise: each is the shell for an alternate release of multiple titles.
https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/cast-acting-credits-guidelines/GH3JZC74FVYKKFMD?ref_=helpart_nav_6#general
If a title is later shown as an episode of a series then it should be added as a shell episode. No filmography credits relating to the original title should be added to the shell to avoid crediting the work twice on the name pages of those involved. If the individual contributed to new material relating solely to that episode i.e. hosting segment then they are valid credits and may be added to the shell episode). Please also add a trivia item and a movie connection linking the episode to the original title page.
Why can't a dvd with multiple titles be a "series"? Seems at least as legit as a YouTube series.
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1273 Posts
  • 1517 Reply Likes
If movies can be series (which they aren't), then franchises should be listed under a single title with each movie as an "episode". That doesn't make any sense. YouTube series make sense as they are generally created by one individual. These 50 title DVDs are most public domain movies that someone collected and put a bunch on the DVD to make it somewhat appealing to buy. They are not interconnect and have no relationship to each other.
(Edited)
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1576 Posts
  • 2569 Reply Likes
But we already have anthology series that are TV airings of pre-existing films:
Great Performances and American Masters come to mind. Not all of their episodes aired first in theatres, but many were. And the only connection I know of is that someone at PBS decided these were Great or Masters.

I'm not convinced, but the "shell" construct sort of fits here.

How about this title, available on Amazon streaming:
Betty Boop - Vol. 1: 22 Cartoon Classics - 2 Hours (2017) (TV Movie)

This is simply the stringing together of theatrical cartoons released in the 1930s. But it's a new product, released to the public.
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1273 Posts
  • 1517 Reply Likes
You touch on, but don't see to realize, the difference between Great Performance and American Masters and these 50 movie dvds. First, they actually air on television so there would be some confusion for users if they logged in and looked for episodes and they didn't exist. Second, I believe these series were drivers for the shell concept because they aired a mixed of original and repackaged content.

There is nothing original in any of these 50 package dvd deals. It's a marketing gimmick.

And, no, that Betty Boop should not be listed either. This has been discussed previously when someone turned Tom and Jerry shorts into a series.
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1576 Posts
  • 2569 Reply Likes
I don't see anything original in the airing of a Great Performances episode that was previously released in theatres, unless it's some introduction, or worse, pledge breaks.

I'm just positing that "airing" has become a broader definition, and am wondering aloud whether a dvd release isn't just as good as streaming.

So long as Betty Boop is presented historically correctly, as contrasted with this title:
Betty Boop (1930) (TV Series), where now it looks like this was a TV series DURING 1930, I don't know that I object to documenting (as a title on IMDb) a streaming product that's a compilation of older material. Therefore a dvd box set seems ok too.

Slippery slopes...
Photo of Charles Paxton Martin

Charles Paxton Martin

  • 33 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
The consensus is clearly NO. However, I can see that adding a category of accessible LISTS could prove useful for quite a lot of people with special interests in one type of genre.
(Edited)
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1273 Posts
  • 1517 Reply Likes
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
Photo of Artie Romero

Artie Romero

  • 30 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
I doubt that anyone is looking for DVD packages of theme-related movies on IMDb. I believe OP is correct about removing this title.
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1273 Posts
  • 1517 Reply Likes
It seems odd that it's been 2 days without an official response and it is still listed as a question. Can we get a response so we know whether we should submit these titles for deletion.
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1576 Posts
  • 2569 Reply Likes
Let me try to solidify my argument, without necessarily endorsing that IMDb keep these titles.

If TV channel GRIT had curated these films:
Western Outlaws: 50 Movie MegaPack (2016 Video)
into a series, and given the series a name, then IMDb rules allow for the creation of a shell series:
If a title is later shown as an episode of a series then it should be added as a shell episode. No filmography credits relating to the original title should be added to the shell to avoid crediting the work twice on the name pages of those involved. If the individual contributed to new material relating solely to that episode i.e. hosting segment then they are valid credits and may be added to the shell episode). Please also add a trivia item and a movie connection linking the episode to the original title page.
GRIT happens to be an OTA (Over the Air, perhaps also cable?) channel. If it were a streaming (internet) service, the shell would also be allowed.

I don't see why, just because the delivery mechanism was DVD, the shell should not be allowed. Titles that are direct-to-video for their initial release are eligible. Why not re-releases?

And it _IS_ nice to have a  complete list of the films somewhere, which Amazon product listings often omit. (If IMDb had a list-search ability on the horizon, then a list would suffice.)
(Edited)
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1633 Posts
  • 2083 Reply Likes
There are literally hundreds of DVD releases ”out there” (and many of those in Amazon) that include several movies. Some might have even 20 or 50 films in one package. Many probably public domain, some borderline bootlegs (yes, even in Amazon), some smaller indy films, some English dubbed TV versions of international films etc etc. Anything goes, as long as they can bend the copyright rules (and like I said, some are actually licensed, so I’m not accusing anyone particular).


But no, these doesn’t belong to IMDb (meaning the DVD releases - individual films of course should be added). In the end, it’s like adding all Back to the Future DVD/BD releases to IMDb: ”Back to the Future: 25th Anniversary Trilogy”, ”Back to the Future 30th Anniversary Trilogy”, ”Back to the Future: The Complete Adventures”...


There are sites like DVDcompare (Rewind) that lists and compares different DVD/Blu-ray releases. That (and similar sites) are a place for this kind of info.
(Edited)
Photo of M J

M J

  • 133 Posts
  • 111 Reply Likes
No, surprised titles like that get even approved.
Photo of Will

Will, Official Rep

  • 4016 Posts
  • 5201 Reply Likes
Hi there,

Just to confirm that these, in most cases, are ineligible for a title page in their own right and a title deletion should be submitted via the Contact Us form.

Thanks,
Will
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1576 Posts
  • 2569 Reply Likes
Will, the reason for ineligibility should be specified in the guidelines somewhere. As I said above (on the day the thread was created):
From the help:
Title eligibility (nothing prohibitive here), and refers us to ...
Title Formatting guide (don't see anything here either)
hmmm...
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1273 Posts
  • 1517 Reply Likes
Actually, those guides do tell you that they are not eligible. After all, they list what is eligible. It would be exhausting and would never be definitive to list what is not eligible. Since it meets none of the eligible categories, it is ineligible.
Photo of bderoes

bderoes, Champion

  • 1576 Posts
  • 2569 Reply Likes
If it is so clear that they are ineligible, why did you start this thread?
Photo of fastus_norbot

fastus_norbot

  • 6 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
A fiendish little question.
Photo of Artie Romero

Artie Romero

  • 30 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
A tedious little thread.
Photo of Artie Romero

Artie Romero

  • 30 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
:D jk
(Edited)