ANSWERED: Why did the site decide crew could not be (archive footage)?

If you know the footage, to be able to say who the crew was, then the credit is already on the included footage, or theoretically so.
Add the movie link and that's all that's needed, like for cast.

Unless it's an odd situation which of course you will now elaborate on. ;)

Just noticing
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000042/flat/218903279
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000042/nest/218914139

Dave,

No, that's not the right answer but I will not elaborate based on the fact that this has nothing to do with movie links (which, evidently, you do not understand to begin with), but does have something to do with a movie title that is 100% archive footage regarding the cast members...and the crew members.

If the cast of "The Fighting Devil Dogs (1943),69 minute feature, is 100% (archive footage) which it is.... from "The Fighting Devil Dogs (1938),204 minute serial, then the crew credits for the 1943 feature(there is no 'New" footage )are also 100% archive footage.

I picked "The Fighting Devil Dogs (1943)", as an example...because this one does have the crew corectly shown as (archive footage.)

But after years of allowing the crew (like the cast) be marked as (archive footage), when it applied, the site recently decided to not allow that.

That was the question...why did the site decide that.

Your non-elaborated reply did not answer that question. See the subject line again:Why did the site decide crew could not be (archive footage)?

Thank you for giving a non-answer to a question only a staffer can answer. That's why I didn't put Staff in the subject line...I wanted to be sure the assigned monitoring staffer would see it.

Take care,

Les

(Damn! I came real close to elaborating.)

Bump

Hi Les, sorry for the delay with getting to this and apologies if the block on using (archive footage) for crew members was not communicated to you. This wasn't actually a change in official policy - that attribute was never intended for use on any filmography type other than cast, as per the guide on: http://www.imdb.com/updates/guide/attributes
(archive footage)
A cast member appears in some footage from an unidentified production, usually newsreel, behind-the-scenes, or home movies. This is helpful to explain the appearance of a person in a documentary released after their death. If the footage is from an identified production, then it should instead be described by a "featured in" movie link, and no cast/crew entry should be created for the new title. (See our special guide for rules.)
I understand that this was communicated differently in the past, and apologies again for our lack of consistency on the matter. To be fair it's not a bad workaround for the scenarios that you and others on this board have mentioned. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) one side-effect of migrating our data to new, better systems is that it becomes more difficult for us to support hacky workarounds like that. The (archive footage) attribute was designed to determine how cast credits are displayed within a filmography, it was never supposed to be used for crew.

Saying that, because we do not have a solution for the cases you mention, we're going to leave the live instances of (archive footage) for crew as they are for the timebeing. We're also going to leave the block on adding new ones so we can keep a lid on the use of it, and instead request that - should you come across a scenario that calls for it - you post a thread on here requesting that an editor add the attribute for you.

I realise this isn't an ideal solution, but until we have a technical one it's probably as good as any. We'll monitor the workflow over the next few months and review it if we feel it's not working for contributors or editors alike. Equally if it turns out that the use of (archive footage) for crew causes problems downstream as we continue our migrations, we'll have to work something else out.

Thanks for your feedback on this, and your patience in awaiting an answer.

Best,
Tom

Thomas,



First, thanks for the honesty reference that the new, better system does not also provide better results...Thanks for the bad news clarification... and also the good news reference:

"Saying that, because we do not have a solution for the cases you mention, we're going to leave the live instances of (archive footage) for crew as they are for the timebeing. We're also going to leave the block on adding new ones so we can keep a lid on the use of it, and instead request that - should you come across a scenario that calls for it - you post a thread on here requesting that an editor add the attribute for you."

Actually, there are two types of (archive footage) that qualify for (archive footage) on cast and crew...(with reservations from me that match yours on the first one)
1. The 'Forrest Gump" rule should always apply to cast (i.e., "Mr. Broadway") but to use it for Crew (especially when several fims are involved...as in the film the rule is named after... would lead to mass confusion and runaway, (unprovable) padding reference the majority of crew members on any of those films used as part of the plot, especially those made in the last four decades, when everybody including the poop-picker-upper for the stars' lap
dog are credited.)
2. Any film that has an edited version (retitled and re-released theatrically or sold to television or homemarket, or any such combination) also listed on site with a separate page.There aren't that many of those theatrically, but there are a slew of those sliced-and-diced by television...and those raggety-butt 8mm and 16mm titles from Castle Films and their kin.

The vast, vast majority of movies (original theatrical release) that should also carry Crew as (archive footage) are the theatrical serials that have edited-down feature versions...sometimes as many as four titles. Most already show(archive footage) for crew. I'll post (here) additional ones as I find them.

There are many of us still here that were around when this site created (archive footage) for cast members, in order to keep Buster Crabbe from getting four listings for one job, and we---well, me, for certain---are still thankful for that.

And your response today is an example of the site, as it has often done before, responding honestly for the reason something can't be done...and, then, as you have done before offering a workaround solution to the titles that truly should have Crew members listed as (archive footage)...plus keeping the ones already on site with (archive footage) crews.

Thanks to all of you,

Les

I am bumping this thread for reference purposes.

I am bumping this thread to (1) ask whether the submission guide already contains a clear statement that the (archive footage) attribute does not apply to crew credits, only to cast; and (2) request that that be added to the submission guide if it isn't already there.

gromit,

I wouldn't sweat it because, as Tom explained the site switched horses in mid-stream and while (archive footage) can still be attributed to the cast of a 75- minute feature film, edited from a 275 minute serial, the crew can't...so, in effect, while the cast members are rightfully shown as (archive footage) and, thusly (not to mention rightfully) do not get two listings for the acting they only got paid for once.

But the directors and writers and music director and cameramen and stunt people (never credited in any film made prior to whenever it was that their union demands were met in the mid-70s(?)--- and most had to have SAG cards after that was created in the mid-30s since they usually had a (credited or uncredited)character role in the film..and sometimes as many as four in the same film...and, I can't even find a place to put a sentence in this jumbled and disjointed paragraph, so I'll stop and start over.

So, while the cast can rightfully and correctly have (archive footage) in any film edited from another film, thereby getting only one job listing for a job they only did and got paid for ONCE, the crew can't.

Consequently, the crew will get multiple listings for a job they only did one time. Thereby distorting the facts regarding just how many films , example, this director directed.

And, thusly applied, it means that William Witney gets a credit for directing the original 275-minute film and also for directing the (archive footge) used in the edited-from feature film. And, thusly implying, he went back to the studio and re-directed the footage from the original film that was edited into the feature. Maybe an IMDb staffer can explain how Bill Witney re-directed existing footage.

Notice I didn't mention the editor of the original film. He did work twice. He edited the original and, under the supervision of his boss, Republic's supervising editor, Murray Seldeen, cobbled together the edited-from feature film.And maybe the Associate Producer told one of the writers to put together a cutting script to guide the films supervising editor and editor (whose goal was to someday be promoted to Supervising Editor at the studio) as to what 215 minutes could be edited out of the edited-from film and still get a 75-minute feature-version that might be watchable...story wise.

(This was back in the days when an Associate Producer was the actual hands-on producer of the film and not the laughable credit it is today.)

But, because the site's software or platform (or whatever tekkie term applies) can't handle Crew as (archive footage) in the enhanced-for-our-viewing pleasure changes, the site decrees that the crew-facts of (archive footage)become an enhanced fabrication.

But that's life in the fast lane and old farts who know better but who will all be dead and gone in a few years anyway, need to pull over and get their slow-poke butts off of the Enhanced Highways.

I will, just as soon as I can figure out how to turn off the cruise control and where the turn signal is located.

Plus, I've had a bad night. I had the Patriots minus three, and they didn't even show up at NRG until the third quarter was nearly over. Well, better late than never.

I'm sure going to miss the two message boards that I ever look at. Bet you will too.

My best,

Les