Error with adding subgenre keyword "kids-family"

@Michelle​ 

I think Peter already figured out exactly what happened. But regardless of how it happened, is "kids-family" really an appropriate subgenre keyword? Isn't it redundant?

After all, here is IMDb's official definition of the Family genre:

I guess there is an argument to be made that everything in the Family genre is targeted either to (1) kids or (2) kids plus the rest of their families, in which case there might be keywords "kids-family" and "family-family." But again, all of this seems highly redundant.

The official definition of "kids-family" refers to kids "7 and under." Still seems largely redundant given that the Family genre means "for a younger audience."

@keyword_expert​ I wonder if the initial motive for making the "kids-family" subgenre is an attempt to separate the stuff that everybody likes (Lion King, Toy Story, etc.) from stuff that little kids love but most adults find insufferable (Barney and Friends, Paw Patrol, etc.). But if that's the case, the description ruins it by setting the age limit too high and listing The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh as an example.

I agree that the subgenre is totally redundant as currently defined. Virtually all "family" films can be appreciated by children as old as 6-7 years. It might be helpful to make a distinction for stuff that's specifically aimed at toddlers, but as it stands I think the description and listed examples are too broad for that to be useful.

I've created a separate thread to talk about these issues, since they weren't getting much of a response here.

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/miscellaneous-errors-on-keyword-help-page-subgenres/64149e4ff24ba958c581f576

Well, our dear Bradley Kent often complaints about some keywords being too subjective.

@jeorj_euler​ And he complains even more loudly about "genre-infused" keywords. But he's not the only one -- on these types of complaints he and I usually agree. 

“kids-family” is a terrible subgenre ... just a repetition of the Family genre, which is intended to be limited to titles deemed "acceptable” viewing for the “entire” family, including (apparently) the youngest.

And, yes, this is extremely subjective.  I am constantly shocked at some of the titles that my friends with young children allow their children to watch. (Anatomy of a Murder? Vertigo? The Grearest Story Ever Told?)

Also, wasn’t “kid” rejected long ago EVEN as a keyword, in favor of child.  That was to avoid confusion with baby goats, wasn’t it?

@bradley_kent​ 

Also, wasn’t “kid” rejected long ago EVEN as a keyword, in favor of child.  That was to avoid confusion with baby goats, wasn’t it?

Pretty much, except that happened less than 13 months ago, which was arguably not "long ago."

At age 82, thirteen months is still “a long time ago."

@bradley_kent​ Understood, but I suppose that would also be a "subjective" viewpoint (to bring the conversation full circle).

@gromit82​ Agreed.

Such is the problem with many of the official subgenre keywords, which seem to have been labeled rather arbitrarily and in many cases in conflict with the rest of the guidelines.

I'm thinking of keywords like "whodunnit-mystery" (which uses the British spelling of "whodunit"), the weirdly worded "classical-western" (instead of "classic-western"), the completely generic and nearly useless "other-sport," the patently redundant "docudrama-drama," the awkward "for-grown-ups-animation" (instead of the much more common preexisting keyword "mature-animation"), and the redundant "sitcom-comedy." 

A root problem with these keywords is that IMDb staff appear to be insistent on using genres as hyphenated suffixes in every single official subgenre keyword. I have never understood why they deem that necessary. I think people are capable of intuiting that the keyword "sitcom" is referring to a subgenre without using the redundant "sitcom-comedy" instead. And it's also possible to have subgenres that fit underneath multiple genres, e.g., "giallo" should be used instead of trying to pigeonhole all giallos into "giallo-thriller." 

@keyword_expert​ It's also awkward how they have things like "Epic" under multiple genres, so if a movie is an action-adventure-fantasy-drama, instead of adding "epic" just once, you end up having to submit it four times ("epic-action", "epic-adventure", "epic-fantasy", "epic-drama").

And, as I have said before, HOW is it possible for a title to have a subgenre that includes a genre without also having THAT genre as a genre?  Makes no sense.

@bradley_kent​ 

And, as I have said before, HOW is it possible for a title to have a subgenre that includes a genre without also having THAT genre as a genre?  Makes no sense.

This is why, for example, "alternate-history" should probably not be listed by IMDb as an official subgenre keyword. After all, the official definition of the "alternate-history" keyword ("The plot features a historical event that occurs or resolves differently than it did in real life.") directly conflicts with the definition of the History genre ("While some characters, incidents, and dialog may be fictional, these should be relatively minor points used primarily to bridge gaps in the record."). 

Certainly the subgenre keywords were not properly thought out before their big roll-out. I wonder if these problems will ever be fixed.

@keyword_expert​ The "fictional-war" keyword is like that too. The War genre definition specifies that the title must pertain to a real war.

The "fictional-war" keyword should remain in existence, but it shouldn't be considered a subgenre of the War genre.

@gromit82​ 

Another good example.

The "fictional-war" keyword should remain in existence, but it shouldn't be considered a subgenre of the War genre.

Agreed. I feel the same way about the "alternate-history" keyword.

I feel like whomever dreamed up all the subgenre keywords did not do their due diligence. 

Exactly!  I have nightmare visions of an IMDb staff committee creating these subgenres, not knowing what they were doing, and letting persuasive, tho misguided, egos make the final decisions.

@bradley_kent​

And, as I have said before, HOW is it possible for a title to have a subgenre that includes a genre without also having THAT genre as a genre?  Makes no sense.

I actually disagree with you and @keyword_expert​ on this point. This feature is useful in cases where titles blur the lines of the primary genre definitions, but have an undeniable influence from one of them.

For example, Pulp Fiction (1994) is to many people the quintessential example of "dark-comedy" in a movie, but most people would hesitate to describe it as a "comedy" in general. It would be odd to see it on a list of "Top 100 Comedies of the 1990s" or something. It makes perfect sense to me how this could be reflected on IMDb by having the main genres be Crime/Drama, while the subgenres include "dramedy-drama" to indicate that there are strong comedic elements in an otherwise dramatic film, and "dark-comedy" to indicate the style of comedy.

(A lot of dramas also have strong satirical elements without being outright comedies.)

"Contemporary-western" is another example where this is useful. Many of the films considered contemporary-westerns, despite taking place in the present day, retain enough influence from traditional westerns that it doesn't seem odd or out of place to call them a western outright. Some of them, however, are more subtle in the ways they adapt the western to a modern setting. I don't think it's really necessary or advisable to add "western" as a genre to No Country for Old Men (2007); nevertheless, I do think it's a perfect candidate for the subgenre "contemporary-western".

Sorry, but I couldn’t disagree with you more.  This would be creating an engulfing quicksand of subjectivity that would “swallow” logic.

One, I am assuming, learns the basic format of outlining and logical thinking in grade school.  A main point (a genre) is further divided into supporting points (subgenres).  There needs to be a “first team" before there is a “sub” team.    Nothing can be “sub” to "something else" unless that “something else” already exists.  Subgenres are “subordinate” to the “commanding” genre.  Even in IMDb’s created list of subgenres, they are organized by and attached to IMDb's genres.

As to Pulp Fiction, I deduce that it belongs in the  Comedy genre, with dark-comedy as an appropriate subgenre.  Respecting your way of thinking, perhaps “comic-relief” would be an appropriate keyword.  I, however, found about 80 percept of it funny.  It made me laugh, smile and grin at lot, even at some of the ludicrous violence.

By the by, aren’t keywords subordinate to subgenres, which are, then, in turn, subordinate to genres?

P.S. I don’t think IMDb agrees with me.

@bradley_kent​ Trying to apply airtight logic to categories of art is an exercise in futility. It is not math. It is not science. Everything about it is inherently subjective. The simplistic rules we learn in grade school are useful for completing assignments, but they are inadequate when it comes to analyzing something as complex and ethereal as the art of storytelling. I find it a lot easier to analyze and categorize works of art when the 'rules' are treated as a general guideline and not as an inflexible, rigid system.

Obviously, calling something a "subgenre" implies that it is subordinate to the genre. Having the subgenre without the genre defies the basic logic of the hierarchical tree system of labels that we use. The difference between you and me is I think the hierarchy of labels is a silly pretense in the first place and I don't take it too seriously. Filmmakers don't create car-action/road-trip-adventure/farce-comedy films by measuring ingredients like chemists in a lab or pastry chefs in a bakery. They make the art, and critics/audiences apply the labels ex-post-facto. The labels are just an attempt to describe what's being seen in general terms. I really don't care whether it makes perfect sense or not as long as it feels right and gives me a general impression of what the movie's like.

P.S. Keywords were never meant to be subordinate to subgenres or genres. They exist on a different plane altogether. A film about an airplane can be anything from a raucous comedy to an intense thriller to a riveting documentary or even a dull training video for flight attendants. All of these would have the keyword "airplane" in them. It simply means that there is an airplane in the picture.

@bradley_kent​ Melodrama is one of the suggestions I included in a post I created called "Suggested additions to subgenre keywords". I figured maybe if I put all of them in one place maybe it might get some attention from the editors. If you have any other suggestions (I saw you mention "screwball-comedy" in another comment somewhere), perhaps you could leave a comment on that page.