I sent this update as a remake of but it's added as a version of: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11789868/movieconnections/
It should be remake of because it's remade from another tv series written "originally for the screen"
They are not based on a literary source
Your own guidelines says it should be a remake of: https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/titles/movie-connections/GNUNL9W2FTZDGF4Y
There's no literary source involved. So please fix it. Thanks.
It should be remake of because it's remade from another tv series written "originally for the screen"
They are not based on a literary source
Your own guidelines says it should be a remake of: https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/titles/movie-connections/GNUNL9W2FTZDGF4Y
-
"Remake" vs. "version of".
Remakes are based on another, specific title that has been written originally for the screen, whereas versions are based on a literary source, like a novel, play or fairy tale. Therefore remakes should always be referenced to the title they are based on, whereas versions form a group of titles that share the same literary source. Please do not submit titles based on literary sources as remakes.
There's no literary source involved. So please fix it. Thanks.
Posted 3 months ago
The employees comprehension is perfect.
It is you that is twisting the interpretation into a point of view.
The topic is very clear.
I'm sorry but you are incorrect.
Any TV series that is adapted for use in another country is a just another "version of" that same show. You are trying to take an inapplicable rule meant for another circumstance and apply it here incorrectly.
Just like 'The Magnificent 7' is a "version of" 'The Seven Samurai', so are these two TV series.
A remake would be correct if it was made in the same country.
It is you that is twisting the interpretation into a point of view.
The topic is very clear.
I'm sorry but you are incorrect.
Any TV series that is adapted for use in another country is a just another "version of" that same show. You are trying to take an inapplicable rule meant for another circumstance and apply it here incorrectly.
Just like 'The Magnificent 7' is a "version of" 'The Seven Samurai', so are these two TV series.
A remake would be correct if it was made in the same country.
(Edited)
No, you are completely wrong. I explained it very clearly above. No more explanation needed, just read it again. It's just like what I said. I did not make these guidelines, I'm just repeating them and pointing misunderstandings.
Your examples are not even true. They are listed as remake of and they are not even relevant because they are movies: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2404435/movieconnections/
You giving false information as an example shows how uninformed you are on the matter. So just read the guidelines and my explanation to understand the matter before saying someone is wrong.
I checked tens of titles, they are all compatible with guidelines and with what I just explained above.
They even added the "Remake" vs. "version of" note to guideline to prevent this confusion and misunderstanding which I repeated on OP but it seems that note is still is not enough for some people. People like you still gets confused.
So no, I'm not wrong.
Your examples are not even true. They are listed as remake of and they are not even relevant because they are movies: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2404435/movieconnections/
You giving false information as an example shows how uninformed you are on the matter. So just read the guidelines and my explanation to understand the matter before saying someone is wrong.
I checked tens of titles, they are all compatible with guidelines and with what I just explained above.
They even added the "Remake" vs. "version of" note to guideline to prevent this confusion and misunderstanding which I repeated on OP but it seems that note is still is not enough for some people. People like you still gets confused.
So no, I'm not wrong.
(Edited)
Sorry, but the IMDb employee was correct.
Would suggest you drop this.
You are not going to get this reversed.
I will not reply further.
Feel free to reply to yourself.
:):)
Would suggest you drop this.
You are not going to get this reversed.
I will not reply further.
Feel free to reply to yourself.
:):)
I know I'm right so what you are saying is not important.
Guidelines are there, clear and detailed. There's no interpretation and no need for an interpretation, a fact is a fact, there's only a misunderstanding.
I'm sure a well informed employee will acknowledge it.
Thanks for leaving this thread.
Cheers
Guidelines are there, clear and detailed. There's no interpretation and no need for an interpretation, a fact is a fact, there's only a misunderstanding.
I'm sure a well informed employee will acknowledge it.
Thanks for leaving this thread.
Cheers
(Edited)
"You are not going to get this reversed." said Ed Jones
"I'm sorry but you are incorrect." said Ed Jones
"It is you that is twisting the interpretation into a point of view." said Ed Jones
"Would suggest you drop this." said Ed Jones
And this is the final result: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11789868/movieconnections/
I did get it reversed, I was correct from the beginning, IMDB employee who misunderstood the guidelines was incorrect, you were incorrect, and now everything is corrected.
Moral of the story: Don't jump to everything if you have zero idea and zero knowledge about the topic in hand. You don't have to write to every thread especially if you have absolute zero idea and not informed on the topic.
"I'm sorry but you are incorrect." said Ed Jones
"It is you that is twisting the interpretation into a point of view." said Ed Jones
"Would suggest you drop this." said Ed Jones
And this is the final result: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11789868/movieconnections/
I did get it reversed, I was correct from the beginning, IMDB employee who misunderstood the guidelines was incorrect, you were incorrect, and now everything is corrected.
Moral of the story: Don't jump to everything if you have zero idea and zero knowledge about the topic in hand. You don't have to write to every thread especially if you have absolute zero idea and not informed on the topic.
Moral of Story
Even an IMDb Employee is human and they made a mistake,.
No worries.
It will be reversed in short order.
Even an IMDb Employee is human and they made a mistake,.
No worries.
It will be reversed in short order.
A mistake was made and it's already corrected.
Sorry, end of story.
Better accept you were wrong and read the guidelines again and again until you can finally comprehend them.
Being stubborn about your mistakes will not get you anywhere.
IMDB staff already handled the case and solved the issues.
And now you're saying you will try to sabotage it and imply you will maybe abuse your good standing contributor trust just because you were unable to handle the fact that you were wrong.
Don't worry, it's not the end of the world admitting you were wrong.
Just learn from it instead of stubbornly clinging to it.
Sorry, end of story.
Better accept you were wrong and read the guidelines again and again until you can finally comprehend them.
Being stubborn about your mistakes will not get you anywhere.
IMDB staff already handled the case and solved the issues.
And now you're saying you will try to sabotage it and imply you will maybe abuse your good standing contributor trust just because you were unable to handle the fact that you were wrong.
Don't worry, it's not the end of the world admitting you were wrong.
Just learn from it instead of stubbornly clinging to it.
(Edited)
The remaking of any title requires that it in fact be remade. IE: That title be "Completed" This is "Not" the case in this example. Both titles are in production at the same time. One follows the other by a few months. They are in different countries. Different languages. It is not a remake of but a "Version Of" the same title.
Japanese title is already completed one year ago.
There is exactly one year between ending of one series and start of other, not "a few months"
You're still giving false informations to support your claim just like you did in your first reply with false claim about seven samurai.
When you make up a lie to support your claim, it doesn't become a truth.
Different countries, different languages does not prevent it from being a remake.
Nothing you say is in the guidelines, you are just making up new rules out of your mind.
Guidelines are there, clear and detailed. "version of" needs a literary material. End of story.
Just read them until you can comprehend them.
You don't need to make up excuses and new warped interpretations because you can't handle you were wrong.
Just move on.
Case closed.
There is exactly one year between ending of one series and start of other, not "a few months"
You're still giving false informations to support your claim just like you did in your first reply with false claim about seven samurai.
When you make up a lie to support your claim, it doesn't become a truth.
Different countries, different languages does not prevent it from being a remake.
Nothing you say is in the guidelines, you are just making up new rules out of your mind.
Guidelines are there, clear and detailed. "version of" needs a literary material. End of story.
Just read them until you can comprehend them.
You don't need to make up excuses and new warped interpretations because you can't handle you were wrong.
Just move on.
Case closed.
Japanese title is already completed one year ago.
There is exactly one year between ending of one series and start of other, not "a few months"
You're still giving false informations to support your claim just like you did in your first reply with false claim about seven samurai.
When you make up a lie to support your claim, it doesn't become a truth.
Different countries, different languages does not prevent it from being a remake.
Nothing you say is in the guidelines, you are just making up new rules out of your mind.
Guidelines are there, clear and detailed. "version of" needs a literary material. End of story.
Just read them until you can comprehend them.
You don't need to make up excuses and new warped interpretations because you can't handle you were wrong.
Just move on.
Case closed.
There is exactly one year between ending of one series and start of other, not "a few months"
You're still giving false informations to support your claim just like you did in your first reply with false claim about seven samurai.
When you make up a lie to support your claim, it doesn't become a truth.
Different countries, different languages does not prevent it from being a remake.
Nothing you say is in the guidelines, you are just making up new rules out of your mind.
Guidelines are there, clear and detailed. "version of" needs a literary material. End of story.
Just read them until you can comprehend them.
You don't need to make up excuses and new warped interpretations because you can't handle you were wrong.
Just move on.
Case closed.
"No worries." said Ed Jones
"It will be reversed in short order." said Ed Jones
"short order" said Ed Jones
"short order"
"short"
:):)
"It will be reversed in short order." said Ed Jones
"short order" said Ed Jones
"short order"
"short"
:):)
It was approved.
They are still contemplating the version of instead of remake of.
But nothing is reversed and it will not be. Ed Jones better choose to learn instead of making things personal, this is not a place to restore Ed's self-esteem.
Sorry, end of story.
Sorry, end of story.
Funny. I never lost any steam. Self or otherwise!
(Edited)
Joel, Official Rep
Hi meka,
Thanks for your post.
Please remember the difference between Simple and Complex connections explained here.
As a contributor, you can submit a Simple Connection via the Edit page button listed at the bottom of the title page next to the Movie Connections heading.
In turn, staff are needed to add Complex Conncetions such as version of, sequence and alternation language version of items to titles.
If you contacted a member of staff, they likely believed you meant to add a version of - as this is incorrect because the two stories are not based off the same literary material, I've removed the connection now.
You should submit your new movie connection request via title page now.
Cheers,
Joel
Thanks for your post.
Please remember the difference between Simple and Complex connections explained here.
As a contributor, you can submit a Simple Connection via the Edit page button listed at the bottom of the title page next to the Movie Connections heading.
In turn, staff are needed to add Complex Conncetions such as version of, sequence and alternation language version of items to titles.
If you contacted a member of staff, they likely believed you meant to add a version of - as this is incorrect because the two stories are not based off the same literary material, I've removed the connection now.
You should submit your new movie connection request via title page now.
Cheers,
Joel
Hi Joel, thank you for your reply.
Yes I know difference between Simple and Complex connections but some of your data editors and some of your employees are confused about it, that's what I tried to say in this whole thread.
I submitted it as a Simple Connection as "remake of" numerous times with dozens of proofs and explanations, all declined with "Badly Formatted" reason, nothing was badly formatted.
"If you contacted a member of staff, they likely believed you meant to add a version of"
No that's not what happened, I contacted staff and asked why they decline it every time and asked them to tell me what was exactly "Badly Formatted" and response was that it should be "version of" not "remake of"
Then I reminded her the guidelines and showed her the "Remake" vs. "version of" explanation in the guideline.
Then she showed me this sentence in the guideline by detaching it from the its context: "For a TV series, it is a version of a series from, usually, another country"
Like I said in my first reply to this thread, your employee is confused about your own guidelines and thinks that sentence is an independent sentence and thinks no Tv series can have "remake of" connection which is wrong as you confirmed now.
Like you confirmed now it should have a literary source for it to be added as a "version of"
If there's no literary source shared, if both are written "originally for the screen" then it should be a "remake of"
That's what I was trying to tell and you confirmed it now, so I was right and your employee and data editors who declined it numerous times were wrong.
Reference Numbers of some of the declined submissions:
200320-142811-973000
200319-124429-436000
200316-130322-735000
Just approve one of them please. Thanks.
Yes I know difference between Simple and Complex connections but some of your data editors and some of your employees are confused about it, that's what I tried to say in this whole thread.
I submitted it as a Simple Connection as "remake of" numerous times with dozens of proofs and explanations, all declined with "Badly Formatted" reason, nothing was badly formatted.
"If you contacted a member of staff, they likely believed you meant to add a version of"
No that's not what happened, I contacted staff and asked why they decline it every time and asked them to tell me what was exactly "Badly Formatted" and response was that it should be "version of" not "remake of"
Then I reminded her the guidelines and showed her the "Remake" vs. "version of" explanation in the guideline.
Then she showed me this sentence in the guideline by detaching it from the its context: "For a TV series, it is a version of a series from, usually, another country"
Like I said in my first reply to this thread, your employee is confused about your own guidelines and thinks that sentence is an independent sentence and thinks no Tv series can have "remake of" connection which is wrong as you confirmed now.
Like you confirmed now it should have a literary source for it to be added as a "version of"
If there's no literary source shared, if both are written "originally for the screen" then it should be a "remake of"
That's what I was trying to tell and you confirmed it now, so I was right and your employee and data editors who declined it numerous times were wrong.
Reference Numbers of some of the declined submissions:
200320-142811-973000
200319-124429-436000
200316-130322-735000
Just approve one of them please. Thanks.
(Edited)
I submitted a new one and mentioned this thread and your reply: 200331-174841-606000
This is why it was reversed.
You kept resubmitting until it was mistakenly accepted.
The IMDb employee misinterpreted it just like you.
No worries.
It will be reversed in short order.
You kept resubmitting until it was mistakenly accepted.
The IMDb employee misinterpreted it just like you.
No worries.
It will be reversed in short order.
Problem is resolved, misunderstandings are resolved.
Everyone except you is on the same page now because you can't accept you were wrong and you are unable to learn.
Only one who is misinterpreting things is you now.
Nothing will be reversed, don't worry.
Case closed.
You better read the guidelines again and again until you can comprehend them instead of being stubborn about your misinterpretations.
Everyone except you is on the same page now because you can't accept you were wrong and you are unable to learn.
Only one who is misinterpreting things is you now.
Nothing will be reversed, don't worry.
Case closed.
You better read the guidelines again and again until you can comprehend them instead of being stubborn about your misinterpretations.
(Edited)
