Quoting tweeter:

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
We are not credit fetichists.

I think you meant to post this in another forum.  Practically everyone in this forum has credit fetish of one form or another (and i must include myself in that categorization).

Well, count me out!

I'm interested in the movies, not in the credits themselves. For me, the credits are but documentation of who played what in the movie. (Or who did what, if we talk about crew, but that's OT in this thread)

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:

You seem to be under the impression that the credits are under the control of the film makers. Unfortunately that is quite often not the case. There may be a few film makers that have the clout to demand total control of their films, including credits, but they must be few indeed.

Credits are usually created separately be the main distributing studio. And credits may be replaced later in a variety of scenarios. Older films often have their credits changed when the film changes owner. Films shown outside of their original language area often have the credits localized. New credits may be created when a TV version of the movie is edited.

I don't know if the credits on Eugenie are the original credits, but I very seriously doubt that Marie Liljedahl is credited as playing "Eugene" because Jess Franco didn't care.

Furthermore, we add uncredited actors in Profiler, even though their omission from the credits are far more likely to be intentional than incorrect role names. We add them because we care. We care, even though the film makers (or credit makers, as the case may be) have intentionally left them out. Why then can we not care about role names that do not match the actual role played? Why are the credits sancrosanct when it comes to role names, but not when it comes to uncredited actors?

I'm really trying to understand your point of view, but I can not... 

I understand your point of view, I just don't share it (for the online).

I don't doubt what you say is true for some movies, but we can't have a rule for some movies, we have to have a rule that works for all movies. Which includes movies where credits are integrated seamlessly into the film and closing credits that may even contain live action. There are all kinds of films and all kinds of credits. But if we start to think of some of them as more or less important or accurate than others, we're on a slippery slope going down fast.

As for uncredited actors, yes we add them exactly because they are uncredited. But there are sometimes credited actors who do not appear in the film, maybe you want to remove them as well? Maybe you don't share the order of appearance with the film credits and wish to change it? You can do all this locally, but not for the online. Care has nothing to do with it but it keeps the rules consistent and easy to follow.

Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
I don't doubt what you say is true for some movies, but we can't have a rule for some movies, we have to have a rule that works for all movies. Which includes movies where credits are integrated seamlessly into the film and closing credits that may even contain live action. There are all kinds of films and all kinds of credits. But if we start to think of some of them as more or less important or accurate than others, we're on a slippery slope going down fast.

OK, you've lost me here. Why would it not work for all movies? All I was pointing out was that film makers seldom have full control over the credits. That can apply to any movie, regardless of if it has its original credits or not. I was merely pointing out some instances where it is extra obvious that film makers did not have control of the credits.

I don't understand why you think it's a slippery slope. I think we should always use the credits unless it can be shown that the role is incorrect. Why is that any more slippery than any other corrections that we allow?

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:

OK, you've lost me here. Why would it not work for all movies? All I was pointing out was that film makers seldom have full control over the credits. That can apply to any movie, regardless of if it has its original credits or not. I was merely pointing out some instances where it is extra obvious that film makers did not have control of the credits.

I don't understand why you think it's a slippery slope. I think we should always use the credits unless it can be shown that the role is incorrect. Why is that any more slippery than any other corrections that we allow?

You're saying that some credits are more trustworthy than others. When is it trustworthy and when is it not? Who decides? What appears obvious to you might not appear obvious to someone else, etc. That's a slippery slope right there.

Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:

Do not list actors and crew who appear only in special features, or whose scenes were deleted from the main feature, even if they appear in special features.

That was not what I was referring to, but it is more common in tv series that uses generic credits. Sometimes this will include an actor who didn't make an appearance in the episode.

Well, TV shows are a special case. But the rule that I quoted shows that even today credits are not sacrosanct. If the movie and the credits mismatch because scenes have been deleted, then we document the movie and not the credits. So if the credits don't match the movie because of a mistake in the credits, why should not the same apply?

Keeping blatantly incorrect data because we're afraid that allowing corrections might lead to misuse is just crazy, in my opinion. Sorry.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Actually the rule was set for the opposite way.  It was to prevent Actors that appear only in special features/deleted scenes from being added to the cast list (not listed in the movie credits).  the way that it is being described, seems very remote (not saying it doesn't happen in movies).

Charlie

What he's describing used to occur often in the old days when iMDB rakes were the norm.  You'd get quite a few people showing up with "scenes deleted" as their role because that's how they're entered in that particular database.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:

Do not list actors and crew who appear only in special features, or whose scenes were deleted from the main feature, even if they appear in special features.

That was not what I was referring to, but it is more common in tv series that uses generic credits. Sometimes this will include an actor who didn't make an appearance in the episode.

Well, TV shows are a special case. But the rule that I quoted shows that even today credits are not sacrosanct. If the movie and the credits mismatch because scenes have been deleted, then we document the movie and not the credits. So if the credits don't match the movie because of a mistake in the credits, why should not the same apply?

Keeping blatantly incorrect data because we're afraid that allowing corrections might lead to misuse is just crazy, in my opinion. Sorry.

Actually the rule was set for the opposite way.  It was to prevent Actors that appear only in special features/deleted scenes from being added to the cast list (not listed in the movie credits).  the way that it is being described, seems very remote (not saying it doesn't happen in movies).

Charlie

That may (or may not) have been the intent, but that's not what the rule actually says.
It doesn't say that the exclusion refers only to uncredited actors whose scenes were deleted.

Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:

So if the majority of reliable sources indicated Pearh Harbor occured in 1841...

If the majority of reliable sources indicated 1841, that would mean that it occurred in 1841, or sources are not reliable. Fortunately, the majority of sources give the correct date.

The subject on topic, is about what to do when one source (the credits), happens to be proven unreliable, after watching the movie.