I recently stumbled upon this https://films.discogs.com/credit/42088-zatoichi it is a page dedicated to a fictional character named Zatoichi.

I do think it is a very good idea! However I do think, that the editor who put them all toghether did a mistake, he did put Zatoichi under series. From my look at it seems that Zatoichi had serie based on him at some point but the character returns for a reboot and a smaller part in a film called Ichi.

While I do think that the serie should have a page of its own, the character appears in films that arent related to the franchise, a page of the character is and excellent idea. Another example of that is James Bond in, Casino Royale (1967), while in comedic adaption of 007 Peter Sellers plays Bond, the film isn't part of the serie that contains Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig. I feel Sellers and his his film should be in the list of films where the character James Bond appears it shouldn't be with the series that contains the six actors previously mentioned.

I also think next to the actors names we should be able to click to this character immediatly not having a list of recurring characters below cast and crew.

In the case of character who aren't lead characters throughout a franchise I will take the Rocky franchise as an example.

I would argue that the character needs to have to played in at least two films.

For example Ivan Drago played by Dolph Lundgren appears as the main villain in Rocky 4, a flashback in Rocky 5, and returns in Creed 2 as a main villain. Hence I believe that the character is elligible for a page of its own.

However Clubber Lang the main villain played by Mr. T in Rocky 3, who appears in a brief flashback in Rocky 4, and maybe in flashbacks in latter intallment, wouldn't need a page of it's own.

A character who is far less important than Clubber Lang in the Rocky franchise is Spider Rico played by Pedro Lovell. Rico fights Rocky in the very first scene of the first installement and has a brief dialogue scene with the main character. Lovell returns as Rico in the sixth installment, where he works in the restaurant owned by the lead character, and has one or two dialogue scenes. I say that this character is elligible for its own scenes.

I think another discussion is meant to happen in the case of actor who appears as themselves and are sometime played by other actor. Like Chuck Norris in Dodgeball and Karate Kommandos, who is also played by another actor in a Bruce Lee biopic.

In the case of Bruce Lee boy... it is a gong show, because often enough in Bruceplotation films actors will play him being involved in numerous fictional adventures, plus the numerous biopics on him.

I suggest we keep currently keep conversation to fictional, historical, or mythical characters, and return to the last two paragraph afterwards.

Thoughts?

No

This would be an extremly limited feature, maybe it's something to look into in the future, but right now I'd argue we need to clean up the many credits we have before adding anymore to it.

I agree there would be annoyances in the sense that there would be annoyances like we would end up with a duplicate character list and so forth. I can also see by your activity that you are quite dedicated to this did you start a thread regarding this? Because I do have a preffered solution.

Never the less thank you for approoving it for the near future.

I wouldn't say dedicated, I have seen these "credits" about and always posted them in the thread for removal.

In the rules no fictional characters.

Fictional characters are not eligible as Credits

under credit rules https://films.discogs.com/guidelines/credit

hope this helps.

Perhaps if a real robot intelligence entity that is used in multiple films, which might happen down the road, I could see that as being it's own character. Now fictional ones like "HAL" on 2001: A Space Odyssey are back in to the not real entity mode, and are just characters in the film. I would see such a "true robot" character be credited as "self" in these instances.

Perhaps the same thing for certain animals, like a race horse that stars as itself in multiple films. Again, they wouldn't in that case be a "character" then too, but "self" then.

TheWho87
IMO someone should start a thread regarding diminishing such issues maybe it will be us.

UG1002
Thanks for the rule list. It is good to know. However I am seeking arguments for or against. Obviously if it's overwhelmingly for Filmogs admins will change it. And currently I will not create a page for a character just because I think it's a good idea.

mikewn
Oh wow the question of a robot returning to several film is a funky subject start a thread about it. I know Imbd allows animals to have their page like the dog who plays Lassie has a page of its own. I would be ok with both Lassie having a page for the dogs who play her (I think Lassie is a her) and the dogs who have played Lassie. But yes if Hal appears in 2001 sequel it would be elligible for having a character page in the way I propose it. I also think HAL appears in Futurama but I am not sure if it's a parody of HAL with another name or HAL installed in a comical situation.

Hello once again i just found a VHS and on the slipcase it says live preformances from Scooby-Doo, Yogi Bear The Flinstones.

its called Rock N Soul unsure if on here, i am unsure if i would credit the above fictional credits thoughts?

UG1002
As of now credit the stage actor, if they are credited. In case they are not credited do nothing as of now, because of the rule.

If a characters appears in a live show like a Fred Flintstones mascot and the actor is uncredited I would leave the actor section blank or write unknown.

But we shouldn't break the rule because we like the idea. We already have Zatoichi as an example.

<hr/>

Another points I would like make in favor is that some good folks sometime are completist when it comes to a character they will want everything Superman (for example) is in. Hence if there is a page where we can see all the movies, serials, cartoons, and TV show the character appeared in. A page regarding this character would be super usefull.

thank you, i will not add the fictional credits.

mikewn wrote:

Perhaps the same thing for certain animals, like a race horse that stars as itself in multiple films. Again, they wouldn't in that case be a "character" then too, but "self" then.

You mean like Bart The Bear?

This would be far too much for what Filmogs is trying to achieve at the moment in its extremely early stages - I suggest we all stick to contributing the films and releases we own for the database sake
of physical media.

Nick,

I do not think it would really inpede on one or the other.

Regarding films if wish Filmogs would take it upon themselves to add all the major American releases of at least the last 20 years, with the names attached to the lead and director. Especially the AFI's website being so detailed, and let us take care of the smaller films. It would be less time consuming for the user. I also noticed a pattern that when a commercial Hollywood film is added, releases for them pop up quickly. Just wanted to get that out there.

I agree that mixing the character with the cast is not good and to ba able to click on the characters page would be the name accross the actor's name.

Some characters should be sub-genres...

Which ones, I don't see it?

BarryWallace : I agree about the major films being put up by Filmogs as you see so many duplicates that people have added by accident or not reading the wiki. Llus, regarding Hollywood film releases there are so many attached to them so it would be a hood idea absolutely. That being said, a quite well known TV series like Charmed (1998) that I'm focusing on presently only has one release from a fortnightly magazine subscription. I suppose it's down to Filmogs still being in its infancy and it's our commumity duty to come together and add our physical media collection(s). Still there are definitely bugs to be fixed to make contributions easier for members.

Hope you're well. Nick

Yep and I am not asking filmogs devs to do complex stuff like you and Charmed, just many of the mainstrean Hollywood films, not even TV. By the way if you clear all that you will have done your fair share.

I do think that filmogs doesn't have the infancy excuse anymore as it is nearer to year 10 than year 1.

BarryWallace wrote:

Regarding films if wish Filmogs would take it upon themselves to add all the major American releases of at least the last 20 years, with the names attached to the lead and director. Especially the AFI's website being so detailed, and let us take care of the smaller films. It would be less time consuming for the user. I also noticed a pattern that when a commercial Hollywood film is added, releases for them pop up quickly. Just wanted to get that out there.

So you think that the Staff of Filmogs should add all the major Films from Hollywood from the last 20 years?
I'm sorry! But are you just plain stupid or lazy?
Don't you think that the Staff have enough to deal with?

This is a community driven site. The Films and Releases depend on the contributers.

If you want more Films added with correct info of Cast and Crew, Please go ahead.

This site have many flaws, but to put on blame for lack of Major Hollywood Films
is not their responsbility, but ours!

The more releases we get, the more Film we get!

Zamla_71
So you think that the Staff of Filmogs should add all the major Films from Hollywood from the last 20 years?
I'm sorry! But are you just plain stupid or lazy?

First go f%$^ yourself you are an asshole.

If you had replied from the second half of your message. We would talk.

But since you are a true idiot, I wonder did someone in your upbrigging forgot to show you good manners or you are a recluse antisocial prick who never got laid.

You are clearly a moron as I write in the thread that it would reduce duplicate credits.

BarryWallace wrote:

First go f%$^ yourself you are an asshole.

If you had replied from the second half of your message. We would talk.

But since you are a true idiot, I wonder did someone in your upbrigging forgot to show you good manners or you are a recluse antisocial prick who never got laid.

You are clearly a moron as I write in the thread that it would reduce duplicate credits.

Thank you! You are very polite!

Exactly how will it reduce duplicate credits?

I will slowly start to see your behavior around these board and I will see if you regularly call people's name based on their opinions or ideas. If it's an isolated incident I will eventually and if you make good points will engage with you. In the meantime I am not interested, you dissed me and I dissed you back.

I will slowly start to see your behavior around these board and I will see if you regularly call people's name based on their opinions or ideas. If it's an isolated incident I will eventually and if you make good points will engage with you. In the meantime I am not interested, you dissed me and I dissed you back.

I believe that Filmogs is only 3 years old.

Charmed has more than one release available on the open market.

My estimate 5 to 8 years old.

I personally started doing edits here around 3 years ago, and it had been around for a while.

I went back in time it's at least 6 years old the first topic from users dates from 6 years ago.

filmogs is 6 years old thats when first dvd and film release was submitted

Nivekian wrote:

I believe that Filmogs is only 3 years old.

Charmed has more than one release available on the open market.

There's actually a newer Charmed television series that is on the CW right now that just restarted their season with a new episode on Friday.

I actually meant that there is only one release page for the 1998 Charmed TV series as yet on Filmogs; all seasons are available in many formats on the comsumer market you are right. There's a way to go for all episodes, seasons and physical releases to be added on here; same for Buffy, Xena, Hercules etc.

Yeah I've seen a little of the rebooted Charmed and it's actually quite good - I thought it would destroy memories of my childhood lol but I like it - it's got elements of the original whilst remaining its own series.

I just added a film with a credit that isn't any "one person", but is noted as a virtual credit "collective pseudonym" on the imdb page it has. Look at the filmogs credit page I just added links to here today.

https://films.discogs.com/credit/431415-nanker-phelge

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.