- DVD is a collection of music videos

Correct me if I am wrong -
- This should not be listed as a FILM

  • The individual music videos should be listed as films and linked to the RELEASES they appear on, right?

yes individual entries for each film/mv

That would be my understanding. However, I would take my cue from the release itself. If the separate music videos are listed on the release, they should be entered separately as films.

I recently submitted a TV series DVD that did not list individual episodes, so I entered the name of the series as one unique 'film'. I felt that is what the release itself was indicating - and we are here to record what is before us. I'd be curious about people's thoughts on my decision.

Correct me if I am wrong -
- This should not be listed as a FILM

+1. I have the same problem with the Pixar Shorts Vol.1 and Vol.2 entered as a film. The Shorts or in this case the Music Videos are the Films.

sixandnine - can you link the release in question?

I'm certain this has been established a thousand times already.

but while we're on the topic of what is a film; Is a commercial/advertisement a film?

I ask because I have a DVD which is a collection of works by a particular director, and it includes music video's, commercials and excepts from feature films (the excerpts I figured would just be linked to the main film page).

sixandnine - I disagree. Many releases I own - see anime - do not list individual episodes on packaging. Doesn't make the release a unique film.

sound.and.vision - this is the release:


Dibb-s - Personally, I would add all unique and complete* works - even if they are only a few seconds long. However, I wonder if an excerpt should link to the main film. If I were searching all releases of a work, I'm not sure I'd want to see excerpts. But I guess that's debatable - this is just my opinion.

  • I understand completeness has to be loose given different territories' distribution cuts - for censorship, marketing or otherwise. Many works will necessarily have numerous versions.

Thanks for your opinion EK_ I think your point is valid. However, in the meantime I did some research and it seems that the individual episodes were not named at the time of their making/broadcast. So episode names have only been applied retrospectively - meaning that they are somewhat made up... and not always agreed on.

Hi sixandnine

Thanks for supplying me with your release information.

OK so yes deciding what is and isn't a film can be tricky. The best method of approach is sometimes to consider everything a film, and work backwards!

The only time I would suggest only linking a release to the TV series alone would be releases which contain re-edited greatest moments or best of footage.

A great example of this is: https://www.filmo.gs/release/42796-the-best-of-not-the-9-oclock-news-volume-one

This release contains snippets of full episodes of the TV show. I don't think it would be fair to link each episode to this release as they do not appear in full.

For Mr Benn you are correct, the episodes didn't have names. Actually you'll find a lot of old TV series don't - a good example of this would be Twin Peaks. This series has never had any episode names, meaning each film simply called 'Episode n' where n is the number in series.

Of course this does mean that we will eventually have 1000s of Episode 1's along with 100,000's pilots! But that is fine. At the moment contributors distinguish these episodes from each other by putting the shows name in parentheses, with although untidy - does the job!

For these episodes, if fans or redistributors have given them 'made up names' then you can add these names as a title name variant. In the language field simply type in 'English - Alternate Title' or 'English - Contender Title'. I have added a few like these but all examples escape me now, however this film entry is very similar:


The primary title is the film's original premiere title, in its original language - which in this case is Japanese.
There are 5alternate spellings provided:
The Japanese romanization/romanji of the title - which is the films original title but written in the Latin alphabet
The English full title
The English alternate title - which is the film's 'popular' name
The English original title - which is a direct translation from the Japanese title
The Lithuanian title - this is the title of the film used in Lithuania

At the moment there is no requirement for you to add the episode film entries. For a boxset like that you are looking at potentially 100s of episodes working out to hours of work. For releases like these I like to try and add episodes a few at a time, this reduces the fatigue and eye strain of submitting such data.

Thanks for such a lucid and thoughtful response sound.and.vision. I will enter those episodes, with any anvs I can find. I'll keep the note that none are referred to on the release.

I think alternate titles/ANVs are potentially an issue on this database - one that will be resolved in time but that will present many duplicates in the meantime. Many users will not recognise 'foreign' names, plus the search bar (which gives you suggestions in realtime as you type) doesn't always find the original title you want. This has caught me out a few times, where I assumed a film wasn't already there.

I'm still adding credits to the 'BFI 75' boxset films I submitted a week ago. I'll add 'Mr Benn' to the workflow - thankfully there's only 13 episodes! Like you I am refining and tweaking batch submissions in more bite-sized sub-batches.

I note that many here are simply not adding DVDs without any master film at all. I'd hazard that is more the case than not, since there are some 4000 more releases than films in the database which at the least should be the other way around - I have added one release with 60+ films already. When I get to my Looney Tunes box there will be 100s in the one submission...

[edit] should read: many here are adding releases without any master film at all.

I added this DVD of a directors work, the only reason I haven't added the commercials is I haven't had time to get the credits for them from the DVD and couldn't find them online:

Something I have been doing that I have noticed many others have not is adding special making of features and other similar special features, they are films in their own right and many have IMDB entries with director credits etc.
for example:

Hi Maldoror,

I am guilty of not adding film entries for special features - I probably should start.

Sixandnine, yes there are a lot of releases in the DB with no film entries attached.

In my opinion it is important, but not critical. Attaching films to releases is relatively easy to do, but adding release content isn't.

Also there are some VHS' that I haven't got round to digitising/archiving yet.

Maloror and sound.and.vision.

Like many here, I presume, I already maintain a database of my moving image collection - through necessity - a large collection meant I required a system to track of where things are. Among other things I teach film, so I need to able to access material for classes.

20 years ago I started cataloging all extras on DVDs (and trailers on VHS in fact). But it cluttered my catalogue - and many extras were simply generic, ill-thought through, weakly presented and didn't warrant my extended attention. So nowadays, in my personal database, I mostly only create unique entries for extras that have a director or producer - at least. My thinking here is that if something is good enough for someone to put their name to, it warrants a unique entry. I have found this to be mostly the case.

The rest I simply list often with generic titles like 'behind scenes featurette' 'Making of... ''Introduction' etc in a field called 'Extras', with their host principle-feature release.

So far this has been my policy on Filmogs too. Here is an example of special features I've added as 'films' - scroll down to see (and a special feature I didn't add as a film but listed in the notes - 'Intro').


The two special features added as films are variable in length - one a feature, the other a short. But both are unique works, with directors, that have a life beyond the dvd release in question (shown in their own right in festivals etc). The introduction doesn't have a life of its own - It is simply for this release and this particular combination of extras.

This is just what works for my purposes. If the filmogs community decides that all extras be listed as unique films, I will naturally follow suit - even if I dread the nightmare of thousands of 'behind scenes featurette' named submissions.


https://www.filmo.gs/film/259700-beastie-boys-solid-gold-hits - This should not be listed as a FILM

Now it is linked to a Discogs entry. If a user wants to link a RELEASE to its corresponding Discogs page - fine.

Completely incorrect usage of external link.

So, should collections of short films be listed as a single film?

Another example:


"Pixar Short Films Collection, Volume 1 is a home video compilation "

(Plus the listed 'premiere' date is completely wrong...)

I think "Anthology" serves as a good genre work-around, specifically for short film/MV collections that are not necessarily episodically linked like a TV series (excluding, well, anthology TV series).

So, should collections of short films be listed as a single film?

No it shouldn’t. All have different premiere dates. Released in different timeframes. All have different directors, cast, etc. If you ask me Pixar Shorts as a film is a wrong entry.

Collections are not single films.

This highlights the principle difference between a "Film" and "Release" here on Filmogs. The Release is a single entity. The Films (plural) are not.

The problem with 'Anthology' as a description is that many refer to Portmanteau films as Anthology films. A Portmanteau film is several short stories brought together into a single feature film - such as: 'New York Stories', 'Tales From the Crypt', 'Paris Je T'aime', 'Four Rooms', 'Aria' etc. All of which are single entities, since they were conceived, financed, produced and theatrically distributed as single entities. As such they could described as single Films in Filmogs.

'Pixar vol 1' is a collection for "Release", as Oteis notes: assembled after the fact.

I welcome the new category field. On the whole it's a good workaround for the whole 'what is film' issue.

However, I'm still at a loss on what to put in the compulsory 'genre; field now that there is a 'music video' category. Sometimes music video isn't a Western or Sci-fi or other regular feature length genres. More often than not they are just music videos - with a look and feel all their own.

Perhpas, if we cannot have a music video in the genre section too, we can have an 'Other' or 'unknown' genre to accomodate them.

  • 1

There is a few more examples for that, I'd argue against compilations being films, it should link to the individual componants, be it a feature film, tv series, tv episode, music video or any of the others.


as you probably already noticed. a collection like the Beastie Boys compilation or the pixar short dvd's have several movies on it directed by different directors. they all have their own credits, so they are all films on their own and therefore cannot be added as a single film.


Isnt the idea that we sort those kinda things out as a "community"?

Also I think your caps lock is broke

TheWho87 wrote:

Isnt the idea that we sort those kinda things out as a "community"?

Also I think your caps lock is broke

Are yes and are no.

Staff are the only ones who can remove items like delete etc.

but as a community there is always 1 person who will disagree with a sugestin, which would make it harder.

And also with staff not adding in writting into there rules about stuff new users will come and redo it all again.

My take is that these are valid as Films in their own right as there is the possibility to have several release versions of each across different formats, languages, regions, etc. While it doesn't strictly fit the definition of a Film, it definitely fits one of the primary benefits of being able to group Releases to see where and how they were released over time.

Yeah, nah. Not films. I thought that was the consensus yonks ago.

they are individual works, a collection of "films" is not a "film" itself

"My take is that these are valid as Films in their own right as there is the possibility to have several release versions of each across different formats, languages, regions, etc. While it doesn't strictly fit the definition of a Film, it definitely fits one of the primary benefits of being able to group Releases to see where and how they were released over time." ~falsepriest

In the beginning of Filmogs (which I can't believe was like 6 years ago!), I submitted this "film" in order to group together a list of Mickey Mouse short films. https://www.filmo.gs/film/247-the-spirit-of-mickey

When in reality, I should have done it like this:

A grouping of films is not a film in and of itself.

Also no a film https://films.discogs.com/film/271260-alapalooza-the-videos

Is there somewhere these should be posted for removal? maybe in the 'duplicate films' thread?

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.