Title Literature Pages

  • 3
  • Announcement
  • Updated 4 months ago
  • (Edited)
As Col mentioned in his recent announcement (https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/upcoming-changes-to-several-imdb-features-du6man1opd5q0), we are implementing several changes to IMDb. 

One of those changes is the deprecation of the Literature title sub-pages. The pages today are a mix of media related to the title,including: books on which the title was based; academic articles about the title; and even some written interviews related to the title. The Literature title sub-pages have generally received very little customer usage. 

While we understand that some of you may be disappointed with this decision, it’s worth noting that your contributed data will not be lost. Taking down the Literature title sub-pages will enable us to build a more compelling experience in the future.


Some areas that we’re exploring are: possibly introducing a more obvious tie between a title and a book,and potentially enabling you to vote on how closely the title aligns to the book.  When we move forward with any new Literature functionality, we’ll leverage your contributed data.

Thank you.
Photo of Leonard

Leonard, Employee

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 3
Photo of Dalton Thorne

Dalton Thorne

  • 3 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled IMDb literature.

Frankly, the entire External Reviews section blows!  I'm not even remotely interested with what some feeb on You Tube thinks about a movie nor do I give any weight to "user reviews". I am however, most irritated to see the decimation of the Literature section at the IMDB. Literature wasn't just book adaptations and source material but also printed reviews and production process protocols and essays and all sorts of, thoughtful, scholarly information on the medium that isn't remotely in existence on the Web's braying, posturing and, frequently, infantile, collection of  social media cacophony.

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: User-submitted reviews are terrible.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7402 Posts
  • 9811 Reply Likes
That's a good point, about printed reviews.
Photo of gromit82

gromit82, Champion

  • 7463 Posts
  • 9466 Reply Likes
I would recommend that before re-introducing the literature section (which I do support), the staff should announce the proposed new policies for the section for discussion here.
Photo of Dalton Thorne

Dalton Thorne

  • 3 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
The ill-advised and short-sighted decision to vaporize the Literature section and displace the various areas that I mentioned initially serves only to make the IMDB a much less valuable and useful asset to anyone serious about the medium in general or a particular title in particular.  I know it was noted that "most users never access the Literature section" as someone expounded previously. Well, I have been accessing the site since the mid-1990s and have never made a single decision based upon a "User Review", nor bothered with any of the ubiquitous "Lists" as I consider that the vast majority of both are at best trivial and at worst posted "white noise".  More people attend professional wrestling than Shakespeare in a theatre, so I don't think that raw usage numbers connotes any kind of quality assessment or value.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7402 Posts
  • 9811 Reply Likes
It would mean a lot to us if a famous novelist with an expansive portfolio would make a public statement about this matter, but that's just wishful thinking. IMDb, even though it may be a household name, is not really on any major media outlet's radar. Most people maybe only visit IMDb, once in a while, just to take a quick glance at cast lists and filmographies.
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 3543 Posts
  • 4904 Reply Likes
To be fair, I doubt that famous novelists might care about literature listings - most of the literature in the listings was mainly specific film theory books. Novelists will usually care more about representation of their adaptation and writer filmography. 
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7402 Posts
  • 9811 Reply Likes
I suppose what I had in might was a philanthropist who does teaching work from time to time. Ha.
Photo of HMM

HMM

  • 1 Post
  • 3 Reply Likes
Strongly disagree with the removal of literary sources, at least with respect to credited source material.  Apart from making the credits as a whole incomplete, it removes the context for writing credits:  If source material is listed, an omission of story by or written by makes sense.  It also is a disservice to authors whose plays are adapted.  Why not limit the category/submissions to on-screen credited source material only?
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6866 Posts
  • 4907 Reply Likes
This thread covers the old literature sub-page on titles which was a separate data type.  We have made no changes to policies on credited writers (nor any other section for credits).  For example, see the "Writers" section on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052357/fullcredits
Photo of Martin

Martin

  • 375 Posts
  • 219 Reply Likes
Without the "literature" section, how does anyone who looks at a title on IMDB know whether or not there is a related book or magazine article and what its order details are.

"Because it's not being used" is not sufficient reason in my mind to ditch all the existing data. Is it any extra effort to continue to accept literature entries and to display existing ones? The code to process them is already there. Because unless it is an extra effort, literature entries should be kept if even *one* person uses them.

The Literature entries were far from perfect. In my mind, the most obvious thing that should have been fixed is to make a clear distinction between a) film that has been developed from an existing book, and b) book that has been developed from an existing film (ie clarify which came first). Currently (well, until you did a hatchet job) no distinction was made.

But that should have been a reason to fix the entries, not to bin them.

IMDB seems to be making more and more bizarre decisions (eg binning the episode cast page). I wonder what hidden agenda is behind the removal of existing features, as opposed to putting them into "no further enhancements" status.
Photo of Mark Hyde

Mark Hyde

  • 2 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
As i admittedly didnt look at that section much i have only just noticed it has gone, very disappointing, i am getting into collecting books that a movie or tv show is based on or vice versa, it would have been useful. bad idea to remove it if you ask me.
Photo of gromit82

gromit82, Champion

  • 7463 Posts
  • 9466 Reply Likes
It has been over two years since IMDb got rid of the Literature section, but I think that it would be a good idea to look into bringing it back.

I happened to be reading Sports Illustrated, and I saw an 8-page article about the making of Ford v Ferrari. This is something that would clearly have been in the domain of the Literature section, when that section existed.

The categories of literature that IMDb used to use may need to be revised if the section is brought back. For example, I suspect that we would want to distinguish between a novel that a film is based on and a novelization based on a film and list them in separate categories. (Even a film based on a novel can have a novelization -- which happened with the 1994 version of Little Women.) There are also books about the art of a film, children's storybooks based on films, and books about the making of films -- not necessarily favorable to the filmmakers (consider the books about The Bonfire of the Vanities or Heaven's Gate). And that's just for films -- there are lots of books about TV series, too. In fact, two different publishers have book series about "Popular Culture and Philosophy" or "Philosophy and Pop Culture", and both include dozens of TV-series themed books.

There may be kinds of books that IMDb might not want to cover -- like coloring books and activity books (see these examples for Frozen II). Or maybe you would want to include them -- I don't know. And you probably don't need full publication information for film sources which are public domain books from the 19th century, for example, and even less for much older source works like the Bible or ancient Greek plays. But these are all issues that can be worked out if we discuss them.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7402 Posts
  • 9811 Reply Likes
Hell, yeah!