I am bringing this up after noticing the following pages

https://films.discogs.com/film/541-e-tu-vivrai-nel-terrore-laldila
https://films.discogs.com/film/73902-6-donne-per-lassassino

Shouldn't the majority of these distributor credits be more suited as the companies on the releases since that's the whole point of this site?

First, I do believe they should be Distribution, not Distributor. That's what the release form leads me to believe.
Second, I agree that films should only have theatrical distribution credits. Home distribution credits should be on the release they distributed.

Yet another reason why IMDB is a bad source...
Also, most of the companies listed on IMDB are listed as their 'common name' or 'brand name' and not the actual companies registered name

There is no "theatrical release" page, the film page is for the film as an entity and it happens to have a field for premier date which is sometimes theatrical, it does not represent any specific kind of release. The database only catalogues physical releases that are attached to the film page.

I do not think the film page should have distribution company information, only companies involved in the making of the film up to the final product before distribution.

maldoror wrote:

There is no "theatrical release" page, the film page is for the film as an entity and it happens to have a field for premier date which is sometimes theatrical, it does not represent any specific kind of release. The database only catalogues physical releases that are attached to the film page.

I do not think the film page should have distribution company information, only companies involved in the making of the film up to the final product before distribution.

So the distribution companies that distribute films to theaters and to the home video distribution companies should not be included?

Maybe films do need theatrical release pages... concidering how many films have been 'tested' in select theaters pre-distribution and changed before nationwide and/or global distribution to theaters or direct to video distributors. Also, films that may have been edited for content due to regional religious or moral concearns.

Then should we also have broadcast pages? We could chronicle every time a film has aired on television and how many commercial breaks it had and what scenes or dialog were cut.

This database is mostly for cataloging physical media. Thus is why I say that home distribution should only be on the physical releases and theatrical distribution should be on the film.

I think the distributor should cover the first run/main releases, for theatrical filmsfilms the companies that distributed it during its first run, for TV shows the channel that first broadcast the show and for films released direct on home video the first company/companies to put it out.

What I disagree with is putting every distributor that ever put the film out just because it's included on a list, just have some common sense.

Nivekian wrote:

This database is mostly for cataloging physical media. Thus is why I say that home distribution should only be on the physical releases and theatrical distribution should be on the film.

I think perhaps this database is entirely for cataloguing physical media. The film page has been created as a useful aspect of cataloguing the physical media. I make these assuptions based on what discogs is about.

From Filmogs guidelines: "Filmogs allows you to catalog the specific version of the film you have."

You can not have a theatrical release, therefore it should not be catalogued. I understand your desire to record theatrical and broadcast releases, but I think it is beyond the scope of this database.

TheWho87 wrote:

I think the distributor should cover the first run/main releases, for theatrical filmsfilms the companies that distributed it during its first run, for TV shows the channel that first broadcast the show and for films released direct on home video the first company/companies to put it out.

What I disagree with is putting every distributor that ever put the film out just because it's included on a list, just have some common sense.

Again I think that is beyond the scope of this database. The film page is to catch all the credits for a film that aren't going to be on every physical release, and some that might only be on certain cuts released physically. Distributors, in my opinion, have no place on a film page. I think the film page is only for people and entities that had something to do with the film up until it was ready for release.

maldoror wrote:

You can not have a theatrical release, therefore it should not be catalogued. I understand your desire to record theatrical and broadcast releases, but I think it is beyond the scope of this database.

I can have theatrical releases, there are private collectors that do own these types of things. Unfortunately, I do not have enough $$ to buy one. However, I do have a few broadcast releases in my possession. (I'll try and add one today) Also, a pre-broadcast concideration tape wich was distributed to FOX affiliate stations, back when they gave them a choice, it's likely this kind of tape would also be used for the actual broadcast.

Nivekian wrote:

maldoror wrote:

I can have theatrical releases

That is still a physical item, a theatrical release is a concept not something you can touch, the film used for a theatrical release is what you will catalogue.

However, I do have a few broadcast releases in my possession. (I'll try and add one today)

Whether these are valid database entries probably needs a separate discussion. They may be considered beyond the scope of the database, or they may be considered valuable contributions.

This may seem like picky semantics but it is important for an understanding of what a film and a release are in this database. In my understanding a film is a concept, like a master release on discogs and a release is a physical item.

maldoror wrote:

...a theatrical release is a concept not something you can touch, the film used for a theatrical release is what you will catalogue.

By this logic home releases are a concept too, eh? Then what are we doing here?

maldoror wrote:

... In my understanding a film is a concept, like a master release on discogs and a release is a physical item.

You seem to contradict yourself... Let me clarify it for you.

re·lease
/rəˈlēs/
noun
2. the action of making a movie, recording, or other product available for general viewing or purchase.
"the film was withheld for two years before its release"

film
/film/
noun
2. a motion picture; a movie.
"a horror film"

Dictionaries are great, I highly recommend them. I am surprised on the daily as to what words I thought I knew...

Nivekian wrote:

By this logic home releases are a concept too, eh? Then what are we doing here?

Yes, "home releases" are a concept.
We are cataloguing physical items that you can hold in your hand, regardless of whether it is a home release, theatrical release, corporate release, video shop exclusive release, promotional release, or whatever other release concept exists.

Nivekian wrote:

Dictionaries are great, I highly recommend them. I am surprised on the daily as to what words I thought I knew...

We aren't talking about dictionary definitions, we are talking about the definitions in this specific database. No need to take it personally, it is just a discussion.

So, we throw away the definitions of words and call everything a concept... I guess I can't argure with that brilliant logic. shakes head and walks away from the illiterate one

The point of this was should home release distributors be listed on the film page, the majority have responded no.

Now if only the individual adding them looked into this thread.

TheWho87 wrote:

The point of this was should home release distributors be listed on the film page, the majority have responded no.

I'm with you!

Nivekian wrote:

So, we throw away the definitions of words and call everything a concept... I guess I can't argure with that brilliant logic.

Yes, this is Filmogs!

First of all @Nivekian, Thanx for the fantasic work on developing the Packaging Guide. It looks great!

But your definition regarding Film / Release on this page is totally wrong.
Instead of reading Dictionaries, you should read the guidelines.

<pre> Guidelines Film </pre>

Film Guidelines

The purpose of a Film page is to group together Releases of the same title across formats, territories, printing dates, and other differences. For example, Star Wars

A Film should only be added to the Filmogs database when a Release of that film has already been added, or will be added immediately afterwards.

<pre> Guidelines Release </pre>

Release Guidelines

A release is any physical video release on DVD, Blu-ray, VHS, LaserDisc, or other format, made to be played at home (this does not include blank media).

Of course @maldoror is correct and you are (in this case) wrong.

Here is one helpful link:
https://films.discogs.com/wiki/difference-between-film-and-release-pages.

Thanx!

Any chance to get an admin view on this cause this individual is continuing doing this and these credits have now have devolved to locations as well. There is no point me trying to bring this up as the individual intentionally ignores me.

arn't there 2 users doing this and not just one?

i mean one user copies directly from IMDB.

and the other user adds lots of companies in films but not as many as the first user.

Ah yes the "Jackson" accounts, they were banned for adding things like any TV broadcaster who aired a films and kept making new accounts to do it.

Have you tried contacting staff about this user?

i think it would be a good idea to atlest warn staff about this troublemaking user from what i have seen the user reverts all changes like duplicate credits removing the tag duplicate, and playing silly chat fights.

he also insits on adding useless companies too films and other troublemaking.

like getting in touch with them via this link.

https://support.discogslabs.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

I didn't know the link so I'll give it a go.

The name changing thing came about from the disagreement over IMDb and HKMDB, I tried to use a more accurate translation for names, but you can't question IMDb, even if you can point out they admit changing the order of names, which is why I stopped correcting the pages he was guarding and just made duplicates in the correct names since at the time I was working on cleaning up Hong Kong films.

I do admit I went into it heavy handed but my intent was positive, unfortunately they didn't see it that way and the issue now is we both feel what we are doing is correct yet while I can justify my side they seem to not bother.

zamla_71 wrote:

But your definition regarding Film / Release on this page is totally wrong.
Instead of reading Dictionaries, you should read the guidelines.

<pre> Guidelines Film </pre>

Film Guidelines

The purpose of a Film page is to group together Releases of the same title across formats, territories, printing dates, and other differences. For example, Star Wars

A Film should only be added to the Filmogs database when a Release of that film has already been added, or will be added immediately afterwards.

<pre> Guidelines Release </pre>

Release Guidelines

A release is any physical video release on DVD, Blu-ray, VHS, LaserDisc, or other format, made to be played at home (this does not include blank media).

Of course @maldoror is correct and you are (in this case) wrong.

Here is one helpful link:
https://films.discogs.com/wiki/difference-between-film-and-release-pages.

I don't see how this is any different from what I have stated or what the definitions of the words are.
Film=Movie(concept)
Release=Physical Media

Maybe some confusion lays within the fact that a physical release can be a reel of film, often viewed by the public?

I was only trying to clarify that theatrical releases are physical objects which often have different distribution companies than home video releases and that those should likely be on the film page, kinda treating the film page as the theatrical release, since not many people own them and some may think they are the same thing.

P.S.; Thank you for the kind words.

Now the same user is trying to justify television broadcasters on theatrical releases, when questioned on this being irrelevant information for a theatrical release, their responce is that it's relevant to them.

https://films.discogs.com/film/45794-the-terror/history

I'm pretty sure this individual is obsessed with just copying over IMDb information verbatim and is not even open to any discussion on the matter.

It's getting to a point that their actions are becoming more detrimental than positive for the site, and what makes it even worse is that there is no way to communicate with them as they just ignore it.

TheWho87 wrote:

Now the same user is trying to justify television broadcasters on theatrical releases, when questioned on this being irrelevant information for a theatrical release, their responce is that it's relevant to them.

https://films.discogs.com/film/45794-the-terror/history

I'm pretty sure this individual is obsessed with just copying over IMDb information verbatim and is not even open to any discussion on the matter.

It's getting to a point that their actions are becoming more detrimental than positive for the site, and what makes it even worse is that there is no way to communicate with them as they just ignore it.

Yeah this user has added alot of various companies.

the fbi, now a few towns in wisconsin, some shops, brodcasters.

why haven't the staff done anything?

I don't even mind that, let them spam useless credits, what really annoys me is their gatekeeping of pages and trying to force their way of events, that only they do, everyone else uses the feature correctly but they have to be awkward and if you correct it your just going to get them reverting to their version regardless.

Whats funny is during the whole IMDb Vs HKMDB issue they made their own rules up to justify their side, but if you use those same arguments against them you just get blanked.

I have reported them to staff as they frequently abuse the revert system by not giving a reason for reverting because obviously they have none beyond "I want it my way".

It's why i haven't tried fixing any of this users errors because they blindly revert it too there version thinking it's better.

I have also seen any films the user edits, the user will then go and change all the credits there way. And if they have (2), (3) etc the user edits them adding the imdb link with (I) after the link.

It's very annoying that the user is gatekeeping anything thats related too a film they edit.

Yeah I get if different sites list the name them differently, but to add in just because that's the number on IMDb is pathetic, you still have to go onto the page to check if it's the right person because on IMDb that number is only listed on its page and you'd have to go to the page here to check too so it doesn't even make things easier.

Did you report them before over the home release companies, cause they seemed to fix those films a while back.

No i only added them in the "Staff" discussion, only brining it up for discussion.

that was for Adobe, FBI, Wisconsin town and a few others.

I thought someone had reported them and staff had a word, cause I'm pretty sure that would be the only way they would reluctantly change their ways.

TheWho87 wrote:

I thought someone had reported them and staff had a word, cause I'm pretty sure that would be the only way they would reluctantly change their ways.

Yeah well he is back too his old ways with tv distributors.

and the other user adding 100s of warner bros with each release i thought they stopped making duplicates but they are back too there old ways as well.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.