Slashdot Mirror
Torrent-Only Movie Denied IMDb Listing
An anonymous reader writes "A film set to be released for free via BitTorrent has been denied a listing in the Internet Movie Database. The Tunnel is currently in production and despite pleas from the makers, IMDb won't allow it on their site. The creators of this horror movie believe that because they have shunned an official distributor and chosen a BitTorrent model instead, this has put them at a disadvantage with the Amazon-owned site."
IMDB has a very clear rule requiring traditional distribution in order to make their site. Search for your favorite podcast there, even if it comes from CBS-owned CNET or Comcast's G4, and you get comical results of other uses of the words in the title with the exception of only those that had TV runs at some point in the past. TV shows are allowed on the site, but saddled with a "(TV)" mark every time the title is mentioned in the DB.
IMDB's purpose for living currently is a place for Amazon to collect data on video entertainment products that more likely than not will eventually show up as a product Amazon is going to carry. Even if you've got a huge budget, if you're going to go for non-studio Internet downloads, you're not going to end up in Amazon's catalog and offend the big media types that IMDB depends on.
Don't like it? Create your own directory of legal download video projects and lock big content out unless they embrace the download format. Better yet, help people download their picks onto whatever device they want. Oh, wait, that's MediaFly.
On the plus side, they'll now get way more publicity than if the IMDB guys weren't dicks. Perhaps they'll even make the popular news.
I love IMDB for keeping track of movies I've seen but they have some really annoying policies around what gets included. How is this any different than the 60 or Funny Or Die movies in IMDB right now? http://www.imdb.com/company/co0215655/ I don't think any of those have gotten anything other than web streaming distribution.
A while back I thought I'd add a few obscure short Russian films that are included on a DVD set I have. Mostly fascinating propaganda from the 1950s or so. About half of the films are in IMDB. I spent a good hour or so using their ancient and difficult to use system entering all of the data that I could find which was relatively substantial. Go figure, they actually had a lot of production information in the credits for the main one I wanted to submit. So I put all the data in, got the e-mail that said OK we'll take a look! Waited. Waited. Got another automated e-mail saying well you don't have enough information. Please add more. So I tried to clean things up a bit. Waited.. Waited.. finally got an e-mail saying Well, sorry, none of our staff have looked at this yet, and don't expect them to. Resubmit with more information if you want us to maybe consider it. !!!
What do they want?? There's tons of movies in there that don't even have things like director and producer credits much less acting credits. After that I just don't see the point in trying to help.
I feel bad for these guys with this torrent movie. Can't imagine they'll get very far on their own with them.
I guess the real argument is what is considered a Production. Surely if the movie is of the quality as many B titles the means of distribution are irrelevant.
That said, the flip side is a IMDB that is littered with amazing Productions such as "Football to the Groin" and "Cat Gets Tasered, In Bathtub"
I guess for some of us the real IMDB will be reduced to .NFO files and their summary. That'll learn em' :O
If it doesn't come out in theaters, it's a home movie, not a real motion picture.
In one universe, digital distribution is an unholy force that costs the world eight billion jobs every year and funds terrorism.
In the other universe, digital distribution doesn't exist at all and is no more potent a force than than a barely perceptible breeze.
this has put them at a disadvantage with the Amazon-owned site.
That explains why the site has been getting so "design" heavy it is almost unusable. It can only be viewed with flash and javascript blocking.
The Guild is available at Amazon as DVDs.
Mainly-online projects that have a small traditional distribution deal qualify for IMDB mention... those who don't do not.
...idiots or trying to drum up publicity (my bet is the second).
Really - IMDB can't do what they want them to and remain a reliable source of movie information. IMDB clearly told them what was needed: be at a late enough period of production or at release so they can tell it isn't simply a hobby or publicity stunt or have a major publisher sign off. So they resubmitted without *any* of that happening and *gasp* got rejected each time! I mean, there is only one explanation right - they are protecting Amazon.com business of selling movies!!!!!! BitTorrent is a *distribution method*, not a distributor. They are following their rules for self published movies and those are in place for a reason. It's like complaining that a CentOS repository will not take your half baked project like sourceforge would - after all you have other half baked projects that made it! It's not some grand conspiracy, they list professionally made published movies and some publishers are reliable enough that they allow them to "pre-publish" information. Any other database that is looking for a similar reputation (again, take a community accepted CentOS repository) and they have to do the same thing. Nothing wrong with either way and there is place for both, but do not expect one striving for the higher reputation to take anything.
Further this is what you pay publishers to do and is the tradeoff one pays for saving that money. To use another computer analogy no reason you can't self publish your own x.509 certificate, set up a secure server, and rely totally on that. Just do not complain when people do not trust it like they would a certificate signed by Verisign - you are not really paying for the distribution, you are paying for the trust and connections that the publisher (or CA) has. Lots of examples there too - have your home for sale by owner? You aren't going to get the ability to advertise like a real-estate agent would. Service your own equipment? The place you purchased your items from aren't going to refund your money because you hit something with a hammer you were not supposed too. Yea, they have a few other movies with them but I bet they were not added unless: the movie was released, at the end of production, or had a publisher backing it. Even then one has to note the number of movies that are "in production" and never make it, by that observation the standards are already low.
IMDB is *not* looking to be a repository for information on any and all movies out there (they aren't looking to be a sourceforge of movies, they are looking to be a community wide accepted CentOS repository). Yea, some "real" movies may very well end up with much worse production values than this one - but they aren't going to take your word for it. If they release a quality movie and IMDB refuses *then* lets blast them, until then these guys are only marginally better then me submitting my upcoming movie to IMDB.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
IMDB requires indie films be released before they are listed.
http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?titleeligibility
This movie isn't out yet. He can submit the movie for inclusion once it comes out.
Is there no website that won't fall for a fake outrage story like this one? Is it really this easy to manipulate "new media"?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
No public API, only some ambiguous statement saying they *might* be willing to license you you for at least $10,000, maybe, if they are feeling ok about it that is.
There needs to be an open web platform that does what IMDB does, but allows it's information to be used freely. While I can understand there needs to be a standard as to what get's in, not including something solely because it's internet distribution only shows that though they exist on the net, they don't really care for it. We deserve better.
I always wondered why imdb had such a gawd awful design. I guess that explains it.
Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
I have a short film that's listed on IMDb and I have a personal listing there because of having written/directed it, so I've dealt with IMDb. I can tell you that it's not easy to get on their. They don't communicate with people very well. And their rating system is frequently "gamed" by people to hurt films. So I'm not crazy about them and can sympathize that they're not easy to deal with. However, it's VERY clear that there are fairly simple criteria by which IMDb determines what is a legit film. You can distribution or you can get your film into legit festivals. If you choose to exist outside of that system, IMDb has no reason to believe you're a real filmmaker. They don't pass artistic judgement. They simply say that you have to meet certain criteria to be listed. If they didn't do that, how in the world would they determine what to list? As someone who's been around the indie film world for awhile now, I can tell you that there are THOUSANDS of wannabes who are trying to get listed in order to get some credibility. So I believe the producers of this film are whiners who need to simply shut up. Of course, they might very well KNOW that they have zero chance of getting listed on IMDb, so getting geeks riled up about something on torrent not getting respect might be their real PR strategy. Either way, they seem like amateurs at best.
We submitted our (The Amateur Monster Movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1717690/ ) zero budget film to be added IMDB a few times in the past while still doing principal photography. They denied it until we released our trailer and started getting more press coverage. We don't have any distribution deal (yet) or submitted it to any festivals.
I think if they just released a trailer and got more press (which Slashdot should fix) they will be added. I think it's a matter of them simply trying to avoid adding films that most likely will never be seen by anybody but the people involved in creating them.
Here is a link to our trailer in case your curious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aZquMQhAmo
Amazon is selling the IMDb as a marketing tool to Hollywood.
How?
Astro-turfing in the reviews section of the IMDb is not just allowed, (and I suspect, sold as a service to big film releases), but when you write a review pointing this out, that criticism vanishes. Or rather, it doesn't vanish, but only appears present to the IP address it came from while remaining invisible to the rest of the world.
Give it a try!
Next time a big block buster release comes out, head over to the IMDb in the first couple of days of release and after wading through the swamp of 10 star rave reviews, down to the bottom where the balanced reviews by real people are buried, and write your own pointing out that Amazon is selling favorable reviews to Hollywood marketing firms and that the movie in question probably sucks just badly enough to require the kind of manipulative push an astro-turfing tactic offers.
Then watch your review mysteriously vanish.
Go on! It's frustrating good times!
-FL
write your own pointing out that Amazon is selling favorable reviews to Hollywood marketing firms and that the movie in question probably sucks just badly enough to require the kind of manipulative push an astro-turfing tactic offers.
Then watch your review mysteriously vanish.
You know, given that reviews are supposed to be reviews of the MOVIE in question and not rants about amazon's business tactics (even if they're rants that are factually accurate), I don't think this is actually a bad thing.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ is way better then IMDB for movie reviews
ie. Their ratings aren't done by 14 year-olds on a scale from"sucks" to "awesome" (although they have included "user ratings" in the last few weeks, ack)
No sig today...
Posted earlier today in the Sydney Morning Herald
They probably get hundreds (or more) of requests to list all kinds of screwy things every day, and this probably just flew under the radar of people who didn't take the time to do the due diligence of verifying that it's a real project that's well underway and that actually does have a good chance of being released and relevant. I suspect that with all of the attention, they'll probably change their mind in pretty short order and all will be well again. I find both the filmmaker's frustration and IMDB's reticence understandable. It is a valuable resource, and I don't want it trashed with every schmo who thinks that his kid's birthday party video should be listed.
Besides, as mentioned before, the publicity doesn't hurt, and IMDB did them a huge favor in an indirect way. I had never heard of the project before, but I think it's an awesome idea, one I've actually thought of and wished on many occasions that someone would take up. I hope they do awesome, and their project has motivated me to pitch in and buy some frames.
Sounds like the same crap that Wikipedia spouts about citations from news sources. I'm an expert in my field, and I know things because I've been doing it for 25 years - so when I make an edit, it gets undone because I don't have a puff piece written by a journalist to cite. It's as if they think the sum of human knowledge comes from the evening news, when it is quite clear most "news" is chum. IT moves to fast to disallow non-traditional sources to be used. It's ok though, the non-techies who don't "get" the modern world we live in are slowly dying off. This pleases me.