Will you kindly approve these?

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • Solved
Will you kindly approve these:

131011-190847-048000 // adds "Sullenberger, Chesley" to "Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)" credits.

131011-185017-602200 // adds Chesley Sullenberger quote to "Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)".

131011-191138-528000 // adds "Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)" to "Sullenberger, Chesley" credits.

I've been trying to add them for years. I think one problem is that "Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)" has no credits, so the only way to verify 131011-190847-048000 is to watch the film (the other additions depend upon this addition).

There's a "Bowling for Columbine" rule. Perhaps there needs to be a "Capitalism: A Love Story" rule - funny that they're both Michael Moore documentaries.
Photo of markfilipak

markfilipak

  • 110 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes

Posted 6 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes
One oddity is that you don't need the first and last submission, as one will do the other.

Your best bet to move any submission along is add evidence:

http://www.imdb.com/helpdesk/data_ver...

I'm not sure what the Bowling for Columbine rule is, but the bar is a bit lower for appearances in documentaries (as there is often no one credited) so I'd assume a screenshot of their appearing in the documentary would do.
Photo of gromit82

gromit82, Champion

  • 7116 Posts
  • 8642 Reply Likes
The "Bowling for Columbine" rule is part of the guidelines for archive footage credits:

"If the film is a documentary and the archive footage is an integral/essential part of the story/topic, it qualifies" (to give someone an archive footage credit).

http://www.imdb.com/updates/guide/arc...
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes
Cheers, it was somewhere Google didn't deliver the goods ;)

I'm still unsure what a "Capitalism: A Love Story" rule would involve though,
Photo of markfilipak

markfilipak

  • 110 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Thanks for the link, Emperor. Do you have one that will accept uploads?
Photo of gromit82

gromit82, Champion

  • 7116 Posts
  • 8642 Reply Likes
Mark: If you are uploading photos, PostImage.org is the site I would normally use. Another possibility is Photobucket.com.

For videos, most people would probably use YouTube or Vimeo.

There are no doubt many other possibilities. Just make sure that whatever site you use, you can provide a URL that an IMDb staffer can go to and immediately view your evidence without being required to log in or anything like that.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes
Further clarification to my comment earlier (the bar isn't lower, it is different and a little trickier) and advice on how to prove this from expert contributor MayorDefacto:

In your response to markfilipak over at GS concerning cast credits in a documentary you said

the bar is a bit lower for appearances in documentaries (as there is often no one credited) so I'd assume a screenshot of their appearing in the documentary would do.


I would counter that while the definition of what constitutes a credited role is more broad for documentaries, talk and game shows, news and sports, the evidentiary bar is just as high. A simple screenshot of their appearance would only evidence an uncredited role. To evidence a credited role, that screenshot should include the onscreen caption introducing the person. If the person was introduced by voice, a short video clip may be a better choice.

Proving cast order, which per the guidelines for a documentary type show without end credits involves tracking the first onscreen appearance where they are identified either by a caption or spoken name, can be especially arduous. I find a screencap composite like this, i.imgur.com/Jry2NzB.jpg, to be the easiest way to keep track and provide proof. I capture each screen caption and additional screenshots whenever there's a verbal intro, and record how that intro was made. Then it's just a matter of stringing it all together, and adding short transcripts of the voice introductions to the screencaps.


See also previous discussion on documentary credits:

https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes
In addition to what gromit says:

If you are uploading photos, PostImage.org is the site I would normally use. Another possibility is Photobucket.com.


See my comment here on the different types of image hosting service, depending on how confidential the information is and how much control you want over it:

https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...

For videos, most people would probably use YouTube or Vimeo.


I don't know about Vimeo, but on YouTube you have privacy settings, including one that will only show the video to someone with a link - handy for things you don't want to make public.
Photo of markfilipak

markfilipak

  • 110 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Your comments are appreciated, Emperor, but I must confess that I don't 'get' it. I don't see how, in a production that has no cast and has no appearance credits - hmmm... I like that phrase: 'appearance credits' ...better than just 'credits' and more inclusive than 'acting credits' - ...I don't see how a seemingly arbitrary rule can applied regarding whether some person is cited or not. In film, whether a person has spoken lines is often used as a criterion, but I've seen that violated (i.e., a person without lines is in the credits), so it must not be an absolute rule.

I think IMDb needs to change tack here. I suggest that if a consensus builds around whether a particular person should appear in the credits, then that consensus should rule. Perhaps, in addition to the numbers of people in the consensus, the credibility of each could be considered - sort of a weighted consensus (like how IMDb weights 'User Rating').

What IMDb could do is nominate 'Chesley Sullenberger' for inclusion in the 'Cast' and let users vote on it.
Photo of gromit82

gromit82, Champion

  • 7110 Posts
  • 8630 Reply Likes
Mark: One problem is that there are a number of people willing to vote on things related to movies at IMDb despite not having seen the films. Recently it was noticed that there are already 210 votes for "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Magician's Nephew", a movie which has not even been written yet, much less filmed and released.

Similarly, "Justin Bieber: Never Say Never" (2011) has received over 41,000 votes (with an average rating of 1.2) from males age 18-29, compared to 39,000 votes from all other demographics combined. I suspect that the vast majority of votes from males age 18-29 were submitted as a way of expressing dislike for Bieber rather than based on having seen the movie.

So instead of voting on whether Chesley Sullenberger should be included in the cast of "Capitalism: A Love Story", we should apply the existing rules. Is his name printed on screen or spoken during his appearance in the film? If not, did he appear in new footage shot for this movie, or only in previously existing archive footage? If he only appeared in archive footage, what kind of footage was it, how was it used in the movie, and how significant was it to the film?
Photo of markfilipak

markfilipak

  • 110 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Good grief. I knew there were trolls on IMDb, but I had no idea there was that much bogus activity.

Regarding whether Chesley Sullenberger should be included in the cast of "Capitalism: A Love Story", the existing rules don't work. Before I present something that will work, I should present some optional reading in order to prepare the ground.

===== OPTIONAL READING =====
I uploaded a screen shot when he's first introduced ("Remember Sully?" - Michael Moore speaking) and then when he's testifying to Congress ("Chesley Sullenberger: Flying has been my lifelong passion.", followed by his story of woe). They look convincing. It is in the movie, but the 'screen shots' are totally bogus.

First, I had to expand the 720x480 film frame (DVD, anamorphic with 32:27 aspect pixels) to 853x480 (normal looking film frame with 1:1 pixels), i.e., 720*32/27 = 853.

Second, I had to capture the 861x659 Media Player Classic application window - one can't simply take a Windows (Alt-PrintScreen) screen shot of a movie application because the actual movie in the resulting capture is blank.

Third, I used a graphic editor to drop the 853x480 film frame into the 861x659 screen shot.

The result is what one sees when playing "Capitalism: A Love Story" using Media Player Classic (like a photograph), but it takes the 3 steps above to get there.
===== END =====

The point is: I could completely fake convincing-looking 'evidence'. My 'evidence' alone should not be the determinant.

What about voting? It would be by consensus and it would be weighted by each voter's IMDb credentials (and don't tell me the IMDb doesn't keep track of its users and their contributions.) In the end, the IMDb's editors would have final say, but instead of just one person's word (possibly backed up by fabricated 'evidence'), they'd have many peoples' words.
Photo of markfilipak

markfilipak

  • 110 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Thanks, Emperor. I uploaded the 2 screenshots to tinypic.com and it seems to work fine. I cited the 2 tinypic.com URLs in my submission to the data verification service.

Thanks to you also, gromit82.

Both of you really helped.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes
I don't see how, in a production that has no cast and has no appearance credits - hmmm... I like that phrase: 'appearance credits' ...better than just 'credits' and more inclusive than 'acting credits' - ...I don't see how a seemingly arbitrary rule can applied regarding whether some person is cited or not. In film, whether a person has spoken lines is often used as a criterion, but I've seen that violated (i.e., a person without lines is in the credits), so it must not be an absolute rule.


That is part of the discussion I linked you too (as well as MayorDefacto's reply):

https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...

In a movie, you get acting credits but in a documentary it is trickier - the order is in order of first appearance (after anyone listed in the credits, like the presenter) and the "credits" come from either the on-screen caption or a spoken introduction. With the former it is easy to prove because you can get a screenshot but with the latter it gets more difficult and, if you have to supply evidence, you'll need to take a clip of the introduction (if you can) and upload it somewhere private (just in case there are reports of copyright infringement).
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes
Second, I had to capture the 861x659 Media Player Classic application window - one can't simply take a Windows (Alt-PrintScreen) screen shot of a movie application because the actual movie in the resulting capture is blank.


Although perhaps a tongue-in-cheek example of how you could fake credits, there is an easier way to complete this step, thanks to MayorDefacto:

markfilipak explained an involved process he went through to grab screens from Media Player Classic, due to the PrintScreen key producing only blank images. While his workaround was ingenious, it was unnecessary. MPC has (at least in all but the very earliest releases) a dedicated screen capture function. Set it up, and screencaps are as easy as tapping the F5 key. Explained graphically here, i.imgur.com/lxlfHUo.jpg.
Photo of markfilipak

markfilipak

  • 110 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Emperor, where are you getting the material with the approx 1em bar to the left that appears in your posts? You credit MayorDefacto... who is that?

Of course I used MPC's frame capture.

Check out this: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=28w2l...

I order to get that, you have to paste MPC's frame capture into a Windows window capture.

Note the MPC window around the film frame. It contains the statistics plus the full running time (02:07:12) and the running time (00:35:47) to the point where I captured the frame.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3004 Reply Likes
Emperor, where are you getting the material with the approx 1em bar to the left that appears in your posts? You credit MayorDefacto... who is that?


Ooops sorry, I didn't provide any context - he is on of the top contributors to the site and keeps an eye on this forum, even though he doesn't have an account here. Instead he messages some of us Champs if he sees we've contributed to a thread where he can provide more information.
Photo of markfilipak

markfilipak

  • 110 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Aha. Now I understand. I suppose MayorDefacto has seen my link to the tinypic image I uploaded, looked at it, and now understands why my procedure was so complex.
Photo of markfilipak

markfilipak

  • 110 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
It was important to me that the IMDb editors have the statistics and running time point of the frame shot in the same image as the actual frame shot.