Hamilton and the Oscars

Do you know why Hamilton is not appearing in ANY list of 2020 best movies? Because IT IS NOT a movie.
Do you know why Hamilton will not receive ANY Oscar nominations? Because IT IS NOT a movie.

Only IMDB is considering this recording of a live performance as a movie. It don't belong in Top 250.

I miss the times when IMDB knew what a movie was.

As I said before, create some "show" category to stand-up comedy, music concerts and live theatre to avoid this kind of thing to appear in top 250 or when we search for feature films.

Sorry, but I will insist. Thanks.

This conversation has been merged. Please refer the main conversation:

Hamilton is not a movie and shouldn't be on top 250.

Responses

Gravity98

31 Messages

•

514 Points

4 years ago

The Disney Plus Release of Hamilton should not be included among IMDb's list of the top 250 films. Regardless of praise for the show, it is a recording of a Broadway performance and not a film in the same way that The Godfather (1972) is a film, for example.

Calling Hamilton the 19th greatest film is like calling a scan/photo of a great drawing one of the greatest photos ever taken. The image may be of a great drawing, and therefor contain the aspects of great drawing, but that does not mean it contains the aspects of great photography.

What makes a drawing great is in many ways different from what makes a photo great. Similarly, what makes a stage musical great is different from what makes a film great.

Hamilton is widely regarded as a great live musical, but that does not mean recording it on video will translate it to a great film. Hamilton lacks many of the artistic nuances of great filmmaking, such as lighting, lens choice, story-motivated camera movement, camera angle and camera height, subtle, nuanced acting and blocking, sets and art direction, color grading, sound effects and mixing, and using precise editing to tell the story.

On the surface, it seems that IMDb's policies should support my argument against recordings of other mediums' productions making the list. At the bottom of the Top 250 page, it is stated that "Shorts, TV movies, and documentaries are not included." Is Hamilton really more of a "film" than a documentary? What about a TV movie? That means Steven Spielberg's Duel (1971) would not be allowed on the list, implying that IMDb believes Hamilton is more of a "film" than Duel.

Maybe part of the issue is that IMDb does not have a clear genre tag for recordings of Broadway musicals/plays. While Ron Howard's Beatles doc Eight Days a Week (2016) is tagged "Documentary, Music," Hamilton is tagged "Biography, Drama, History, Musical," all of which are typically used on IMDb for narrative films such as Hidden Figures (Biography) or La La Land (Musical). Yes, In the age of digital media, lines are blurred and we can watch a great stage show in our living rooms (in fact, Hamilton was originally to be given a theatrical release), but isn't it still a live musical... on a stage, and not a movie, a "film?" If Hamilton really is more like a "film" than a live show, isn't it more like a documentary than a narrative film? More like a recording of a Queen concert than Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)?

For recordings of live performances, I suggest that IMDb utilize a "Stage," "Theater," "Play," and/or "Live" tag, the same way that documentary films use the "Documentary" tag.

Today, more people than ever turn to IMDb's top 250 as one of a few definitive lists of the greatest films ever made. Hamilton, as original, entertaining, loved, and praised as it is, does not belong on that list, simply because it is not a film.

I know this post seems trivial in the context of a global pandemic, an economic downturn, political uncertainty, and a major reckoning with racism. But language matters, and definitions matter. And this being IMDb, I assume that many other fans of cinema who use this site agree that the definition of "a film" matters.

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Recordings of Musicals Such as Hamilton (2020) Should not Appear on Top 250 List

gromit82

Champion

•

7.5K Messages

•

276.1K Points

9.8 m/s^2 (may I call you g): I would agree with you not because Hamilton (2020) is a recording of a stage musical, but because it isn't a theatrical film.

As you mentioned, "Shorts, TV movies, and documentaries are not included" in the IMDb Top 250. https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/

Hamilton was at one point planned for a theatrical release, but instead it went straight to the Disney+ streaming service, which for IMDb purposes is considered television. Hence, I believe it should be considered a TV movie and needs a Title Correction to become Hamilton (2020) (TV).

4 years ago

Gravity98

31 Messages

•

514 Points

I get Gromit's argument, but I agree with Ed that the TV solution is not the best, especially considering that Hamilton was to be given a theatrical release until the pandemic changed that. This implies that Greyhound, though filmed and funded as a theatrical release, should now be listed as "TV movie" on IMDb. My argument against Hamilton being in the Top 250 Movies is not predicated on a technicality, it is that Hamilton is fundamentally not a movie, full stop.

Who decides that those three are not TV and everyone else must be?

Though this is perhaps a different topic, I think this is a major issue with not only IMDb right now, but the entire film industry. Even Steven Spielberg has argued that streaming movies are TV movies, saying “Once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie."

I think IMDb should at least adopt the definition of "TV movie" used by the Oscars, where a least a limited theatrical run is required for award consideration. This means that, using your examples, The Irishman (which got a limited release) is a theatrical film, but a Hallmark movie is a TV movie. Obviously this is a loophole for studios with deep enough pockets, as Spielberg pointed out in that same interview: “You certainly, if it’s a good show, deserve an Emmy, but not an Oscar. I don’t believe films that are just given token qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week should qualify for the Academy Award nomination.”

So personally, I think if there wasn't any theatrical run, a film should be listed as a TV movie (or, if there's a demand for the label, a Streaming movie). Of course, This doesn't apply to Hamilton, which is not a movie to begin with, but a recording of a live show.

4 years ago

Maxence_G

4.5K Messages

•

71.2K Points

I agree with you, Hamilton isn't a film, You have my support, and I gave you a "vote".
I was surprised when I saw it on the Top 250, Hamilton is a filmed stageplay, it definitely is less a film than any short on IMDb.

So I think that's IMDb's already established rules are in favor of us.

4 years ago

Gravity98

31 Messages

•

514 Points

...it definitely is less a film than any short on IMDb.

I agree with this. TV movies too.

Lots of "new media" is being added to IMDb these days, and not much has been done to adapt. The thing is, most of this new media can technically fit into the old categories that IMDb uses. For example, streaming shows are listed as regular TV shows, and YouTube "vlogs" are usually tagged "documentary" or "reality TV," which I guess is technically true and not misleading. But there is no category for a recording of a live musical to fit in, so IMDb considers it a "film," which is too much of a stretch. It is false and misleading.

I think it is great that the original production of Hamilton is now available for the price of Disney Plus instead of crazy Broadway prices and a trip to New York. As a recording of a play, it is done well, and I hope to see more recordings of plays/musicals in the future. But these recordings are the democratization of Broadway, not film adaptions. Not movies. And I hope the Internet Movie Database can acknowledge this.

4 years ago

honolulu_styles

115 Messages

•

3.5K Points

hope the staff would solve the issue soon. this is a recorded theathrical play and since it's not a movie how can it be in a top movie list? this belongs to the documentary section!

4 years ago

Gravity98

31 Messages

•

514 Points

Yeah, I wonder if the staff care or even have an incentive to keep it on the list. Surely the staff themselves have noticed it appearing there by now? Of the existing categories, I agree that documentary makes the most sense, though in the future there may be more recordings of live shows, so perhaps IMDb needs a new category.

On Hamilton as a "movie," something I've been thinking about today is, as a film (ignoring the context of the stage), some parts of Hamilton would be considered completely ridiculous.... as an example: a grown man playing a little kid?

Whatever the outcome is, I plan on having less faith in the IMDb "Top 250."

4 years ago

honolulu_styles

115 Messages

•

3.5K Points

Faith in the list is gone. 10 movies are rotating in the last 5 spot of the list for months now. 5 Indians and 3 animated movies..even if their ratings go down they are still there. It looks like we have to have a certain amount of Indians or Japanese movies on the chart.

4 years ago

Gravity98

31 Messages

•

514 Points

I see what you mean, I guess the list was never perfect and Hamilton appearing is just a manifestation of that.... a nail in the coffin, to be dramatic about it.

I have no problem with foreign films on the list, like the Kurosawa films, Parasite, or Bicycle Thieves, but some of the Indian films that have made the list recently objectively don't belong on the list. Most of their reviews are shallow 10/10s filled with emojis. There is a "Top Rated English Movies" list but it means you miss out on Kurosawa, Parasite, 8 1/2, and Pan's Labyrinth, to name a few... and still have Hamilton. I don't know what the solution is, but the list is losing value in my opinion.

4 years ago

imdbmember

226 Messages

•

9.3K Points

This is a more interesting topic than IMDb's 250 list, which is hardly "difinitive" in any sense. It's about the very definition of "movie" or "film," etc, and there isn't really a difinitive definition for that.

Once Hamilton was recorded, it technically became a motion picture. There are a few shots in it, too, that were staged for the camera, although most of it was just a series of cameras set up to record live performances--later edited together. It's debatable if that makes it a movie, let alone a "film" in an age where few films are actually made with film. How "cinematic" does a movie or filmed play need to be to count? Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary is one I like to cite, of a ballet re-staged for the camera.

Some of the earliest feature-length film, too, are basically filmed plays, including stage settings if not a live audience. The camera and technical merits of those films are more primitive than in Hamilton.

Maybe it's a little like comparing I Love Lucy, or any show shot with a live audience or pretended to be with the three-camera set-up as though it were a filmed play, to The Sopranos, which is more of the one-camera cinematic style. I guess they're both technically TV shows, but....

Then, yeah, there's the argument of the medium in which the motion picture is released: theatre, TV, streaming. And that's further complicated by the pandemic, with the Oscars, for one, making a one year exception, while movies such as The Irishman were already primarily for streaming, but also released in theatres for a short time mostly for prestige and awards consideration purposes. And before that there's movies--more so in Europe--that were released in theatres and TV about at the same time and somewhat different forms.

Definitions do matter. But, the 250 list? I don't care.

4 years ago

Gravity98

31 Messages

•

514 Points

Very interesting points. I agree that there is no "definitive definition" of a "film." I don't think the definition involves celluloid, or necessarily excludes all unconventional styles.

I do think that a major part of a reasonable definition is, implicitly, intention of the artists. To use your example: although I Love Lucy was filmed live, the stories, lighting, camera angles, and the acting performances were intended for the final TV audience. The live audience was/is there mainly for reactions and for the cast to play off of. Hamilton was filmed over three days and two live performances with paying audiences. It was written, cast, acted, lit, even edited as a Broadway show. The filmed version was put together to bring the experience of the live stage performance as untouched as possible directly to the general public. I know Lin-Manuel Miranda has called it a "movie," an "independent film," etc, but I think that is more him talking as a marketing spokesman (and has actually confused some people into expecting an adaption, judging by some of the IMDb reviews). It seems obvious that the creative team intended the filmed version to be as much like seeing Hamilton live as possible (besides also being a way to make a huge amount of money relatively easily).

I like your I Love Lucy point, although comparing that show to a single camera comedy from the same time period, Leave It to Beaver, I'd argue that they share more similarities than differences (compared to Apocalypse Now vs Hamilton).

TV in general seems to have a lot more variety than cinema though, with live late night shows, single-cam narratives, news/documentary programs, soap operas, SNL... all called "TV shows" by most people, and have been since the beginning of the format. So I'm not sure that is quite analogous to the issue here with Hamilton and the definition of "a movie/film."

In the internet age, we are seeing more and more digital video, so it's natural that there is going to be recordings of popular Broadway shows. I think, if this is not a new format, it is closer to a documentary film than "a movie." I think a big point of confusion is that it is a recording of a fictional story with actors to begin with. To me that is irrelevant. it is like a full concert video where some of the closeups and effects were filmed later and some mistakes fixed in post. We call them "concert films," but most people wouldn't say Roger Water's Us + Them is their favorite "film." Hamilton is like a concert film. Concert films are usually labeled Documentary on IMDb.

I wish I was better at articulating this, but it seems we here all have the same definition of "a film/move/cinema," at least enough to know what each other is saying. Just not a clear definition in writing.

My biggest argument of course was that IMDb already explicitly excluded documentaries, TV movies, and short films from the top 250 list. They already have somewhat arbitrary qualifications to be considered "a film." If Hamilton is indeed a "film" by IMDb's standards, fine. But get rid of the "TV movie" marker (those are definitely more "cinema" than Hamilton), and let shorts and maybe documentaries be included in the top 250 list.

I agree that the 250 list ultimately doesn't matter. My life doesn't perceptively change because of this. But lots of people (including me) use the 250 list. IMDb displays it prominently all over the site. They even put "Top Rated Movies #XY" on the awards section of a film's page. Plus it's tied into the site's 10 star rating system. So in the context of IMDb, I'd argue that the top 250 pages is one of the most important aspects of the site. Sure, some of us use IMDb to see if a movie was shot with Panavision C lenses (just for example), but the star and rating system are one of the most used parts of the site by a lot of people, in my experience.

And just as a side note, it seems IMDb takes the page very seriously, for example: they keep which user's votes will count secret, to preserve the "integrity" of the page.

4 years ago

imdbmember

226 Messages

•

9.3K Points

Good points. I guess I have a loose definition of "movie" or "film" usually, but I agree that Hamilton is different than Apocalypse Now, but then it's also different than, say, Woodstock (1970). Other filmed plays of fictional stories, not music concerts, don't seem to be listed as documentaries, and I think to do so would be problematic regarding some early silent films or more-cinematic filmed plays such as Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary and would confuse the documentary genre. But, yeah, it's a thin line between the purpose of Hamilton as the presentation of the play's narrative and as a recorded event intended for and of it being viewed by a live audience. I see the merits of your argument.

Regarding TV, remember that movies in theatre used to be more varied. TV replaced the past evening's entertainment at a cinema where one would be entertained by a feature along with short films, cartoons and newsreels. Filmed plays, variety shows and all sorts of other varied programs that tested the definition of what a film is long before TV and streaming took over.

For instance, Hamilton seems an easier case to me than La Jetée, a series of narrrated still images with some camera movement within the images, and that "film" features highly on some critics' lists, although it's too short for the IMDb 250.

But, granted, Hamilton is another odd one. The best solution would probably be if enough people eventually realize that it's deficient as a movie and so stop overrating it. Seems like it has a long way to fall off the list, though.

4 years ago

Gravity98

31 Messages

•

514 Points

I agree that labeling it a "documentary" is not a perfect solution. It seems to be a popular solution in the replies to my original post, and I think it is better than the current labeling, but, as the "idea" of my original post, I think IMDb needs a new category for live plays/musicals. I think with the success of Hamilton there are more to come. They probably won't be so overrated and make the 250 list, but they too would benefit from the accurate labeling (people could search for recordings of live shows, and there could be a "top musical theater" list eventually for the live recordings, for example).

I don't know if Hamilton will ever fall off the list naturally, as it already had its huge fan base to give it 10/10 reviews since day one, and less familiar IMDb users may avoid watching it all together because it is a 3 hour stage show and they may not be into that. I like your wording "deficient as a movie," though. That about sums up why it is frustrating to see it on the list. People are rating it as a Broadway show and Pop culture darling, not as a "movie."

You mentioned Le Jetée, and critic's praise of it. Some critics go for those kind of films, and look down on "commercial" films. Other critics read into the politics too much and rate a film based on their own ideology (many seemed to do this negatively with Joker last year, and maybe a bit with Parasite, positively). I personally believe that is one of the merits of a crowd sourced list like IMDb's, vs a critic's list. You usually get more "watchable," entertaining films that still have significant artistic merit. It was generally a good foil for rotten tomatoes and metacritic with their pretentiousness. As IMDb becomes more popular/mainstream, though, we seem to be getting a lot of fanatic 10/10 and 1/10 ratings and reviews.

I'm on the periphery of the film industry and have an IMDb page, so I guess I'm always stuck with IMDb. But recently I've really been drawn to Letterboxd. They have a 250 list that states this: "I removed all stand-up specials, stage plays, concert films, documentaries, shorts, 'collection listings' and other 'rarities', so only feature length narrative movies are listed here." I agree less with the films on their 250 list compared to IMDb, but this seems like a totally sensible administrator/staff to me. Maybe IMDb could learn something before they lose cinema fans to Letterboxd?

4 years ago

bderoes

Champion

•

5K Messages

•

118.3K Points

The statement "I removed ... so only feature length narrative movies are listed here." sounds like the statement of an individual, not of a company. Just because he called his list "official" does not mean he represents the organization. I did a bit of searching, found the list and who created it, but found no connection between that individual and the admin/staff of Letterboxd. (I didn't spend a LOT of time on it, so maybe I missed something.)

4 years ago

Gravity98

31 Messages

•

514 Points

You are correct that it is an individual. I looked at it again and it is indeed a "patron" (a paying member?) that "created" the list. So I misspoke when I said "staff" (I hadn't spent much time there either, but they have a very small staff in New Zealand)

However, Letterboxd does very much seem to endorse the list: it can be accessed much the same way as IMDb's. And if you go to their films page and go to browse by: rating it is one of the four options. It is also at the bottom of the "lists" page under all time lists. Upon farther investigation it appears that their 250 list is the site-generated "highest rating first" list with the documentaries, concert films, etc taken out, and maybe updated manually(?).

Your skepticism over the word "official" is justified, but at the same time, I don't think the Letterboxd staff would promote the list so much if it did not represent the site in some way (surely they'd take it down or change the "official" title instead of put it on the front of their site?)

Personally, I prefer the more polished and detailed IMDb.... for now.

4 years ago

imdbmember

226 Messages

•

9.3K Points

Adding a genre is a good idea.

I made the jump to letterboxd last year for other reasons involving IMDb being an unpleasant experience, although I also still do the ratings, reviews and lists things on IMDb as well, but more so as a legacy and backup. IMDb is still a better site for information mainly, "to see if a movie was shot with Panavision C lenses," for example, but letterboxd is nice as a social media site where I don't need to go through the sometimes-ridiculous IMDb review acceptance process.

And "patrons," indeed, are paying members there. It's a user and add supported site, I believe, as opposed to IMDb's ownership by Amazon.

4 years ago

Gravity98

31 Messages

•

514 Points

Ah, thanks for the info! I saw that they have a whole page about "Migrating from IMDb," so it must not be too uncommon. I use IMDb mostly for (besides ratings and lists) the technical info, trivia, and cast and crew lists, but I really like Leterboxd's "where to watch" section on each page. IMDb's is still just a plug for Prime (for obvious reasons). I would like to see IMDb at least try to compete though.

Maybe you can answer, is the "Official Top 250 Narrative Feature Films" list really Official?

4 years ago

imdbmember

226 Messages

•

9.3K Points

Official enough. It's created by an ordinary patron, but the list is featured under the "films" section, so it's supported by the site runners it seems.

They don't have special users to determine such a list, nor a secret formula to calculate ratings as far I know, as IMDb does, so anyone could've made that list.

The people who run the site have their own profile "Letterboxd," and there are "crew," from which they also create lists, but the site also sometimes promotes lists by users.

4 years ago

angelo_pilla

153 Messages

•

7.5K Points

4 years ago

Hamilton, a Broadway show captured live and now on Disney + should not be considered a feature film. First because it is not a movie, it is a show. And second because it didn't had a theatre release. IMDb should consider this a "TV special" or anything that avoids this movie to be listed when we search for feature films or to appear on IMDb Top 250. Think about it. And thanks.

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled About Hamilton

Michelle

Employee

•

17.5K Messages

•

313.3K Points

Hi Angelo -

Regarding "Hamilton", as this was released as a musical film it is listed accurately on the site as a feature film, it was not released as a "special" but rather as a standalone film title; note that it was originally intended to be theatrically released but due to Covid-19, the decision was to release the film via the Disney+ streaming platform.

I hope this helps clarify!

4 years ago

angelo_pilla

153 Messages

•

7.5K Points

Hi, Michelle. Thanks for your reply, but I still think that Hamilton should not be consider a feature film, since it is only a capture of a live performance. Les Miserables, with Hugh Jackman, is a MOVIE. Hamilton is not a movie. By the way, all the documentaries which had been released in theatres are not considered "feature films" by IMDb. You really should think of another way to categorize Hamilton. Again: this is not a movie. Thanks.

4 years ago

Marco

2.7K Messages

•

83K Points

Michelle, shouldn't Hamilton have the genre Documentary attached to it? The guide states that "This genre should also be applied to all instances of stand-up comedy and concert performances." Wouldn't it make sense to apply it to theater performances as well? I think it would and should.

4 years ago

plur62

280 Messages

•

6K Points

Wishing there are the new genres like "Theater", "Performance" or "Concert", this is definitely not a feature film and it shouldn't be on IMDb Top 250.

4 years ago

MykolaYeriomin

Champion

•

4K Messages

•

244.1K Points

@angelo_pilla My humble five cents as a fellow enthusiast: "movie" in a wider sense (short for "moving picture") is synonymous with audiovisual media. This is exact definition that is found in Internet Movie DataBase.

I can agree that technically speaking a performance of the musical is not a 100% narrative film, but in this case, due to quarantine intervening it is especially complicated since it is not a taped performance, per se, but a production crossover which also uses certain elements of the narrative film rather than theater.

4 years ago

Marco

2.7K Messages

•

83K Points

Bump.

4 years ago

cyber_turnip

20 Messages

•

1K Points

I completely agree that this should be a "documentary" under IMDb's rules: "This genre should also be applied to all instances of stand-up comedy and concert performances." I don't understand how this doesn't qualify as a "concert performance".

4 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.7K Messages

•

225.4K Points

Hamilton should not the be assigned to the Documentary genre. I can of course see how it is a borderline case, though.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

4 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.7K Messages

•

225.4K Points

Hamilton is neither stand-up comedy nor a concert performance. Interestingly, those things are not exactly documentary either, but they are clearly closer in the sense that the on-stage performers are not participating a fictional or otherwise biopic depiction.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

4 years ago

angelopilla47

120 Messages

•

1.6K Points

The point is that everything we see in Hamilton, from the performances to the wardrobe and the scenery, are NOT created for a movie, but for a theatre show. The camera is there only to register something, not to create. That's why Hamilton shouldn't be considered a movie.

4 years ago

Gravity98

31 Messages

•

514 Points

In my opinion, it's obvious that Hamilton is not the same as a feature film... and I believe everyone (at least subconsciously) differentiates Hamilton from "cinema."

Example: How many "real" feature films use the same interior set for every location, including outside? How many feature film have an adult man playing little child? How many feature films have a dancer portraying a bullet? How many feature films clearly show microphones on the characters' foreheads through the entire movie? (and this list could go on...)

If just one of these things occurred in what we argue are real feature films aka "movies," most everyone would have their suspension of disbelief shattered. They would criticize. They certainly would not go to IMDb and hit the 10 Star button.

So, I think a legitimate argument is that everyone is judging Hamilton not for its merits as a movie, but for what it is as a hit stage musical. Therefor, they are conceding that Hamilton (2020) is something other than "cinema." Its no more or less than a digitization of a Broadway play. IMDb needs a new "Theater" category.

Also, the argument against Hamilton appearing in IMDb's top 250 has nothing to do with it being released in physical cinemas or not. (Mulan went straight to disney plus as well, and regardless of opinions on its quality, obviously fits the category of a "film.")

4 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.7K Messages

•

225.4K Points

The makers of Hamilton movie did take care to use multiple cameras to record the studio events, thus ensuring the opportunities to select various angles of shots for the finished (cut together) product of a performance product. There is no rule whatsoever that a movie cannot be produced and edited together in such a way.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

4 years ago

Grayson

Employee

•

578 Messages

•

11.2K Points

4 years ago

Hey - Hamilton does meet our title eligibility requirements so it will continue to be listed on IMDb.

As such I've moved this to the Idea section of Sprinklr so that a debate can be had and users and staff can vote to say whether or not they agree with you.

Marco

2.7K Messages

•

83K Points

@Grayson The OP doesn't say that Hamilton should be removed from the database. The OP just says that Hamilton should not be listed as a film because it was a theater performance that was filmed.

My two cents: Hamilton should have the genre Documentary attached to it, because, as has already been pointed out in this thread, stand-up comedy and concert performances that have been filmed also have this genre attached to it, so why wouldn't this go for theater performances? Having the genre Documentary attached to it, would mean it would disappear from the Top 250 because documentaries aren't allowed there.

4 years ago

bderoes

Champion

•

5K Messages

•

118.3K Points

The cast for documentaries are listed under Self in filmographies.

I don't think that's appropriate for filmed theatre/opera/ballet.

Comedy and concerts are different in that regard.

4 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.7K Messages

•

225.4K Points

I'm glad to know that I'm not the odd one out. The bit about self credits is an extremely good point that I didn't think about articulating.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

4 years ago

Marco

2.7K Messages

•

83K Points

Bderoes, you've got a very good point when it comes to the Self credits. This could of course be remedied by adding the keyword re-enactment, but I realize that wouldn't be the most desirable solution. Perhaps a new title type would be useful for filmed theater/opera/ballet performances, but that would probably take IMDb years and years to create....

4 years ago

ACT_1

8.5K Messages

•

176.2K Points

? ?

[Self v. Name ? ?]
ACT_1
Tue, Aug 11, 2020 7:25 PM
The superstars of World Wrestling Entertainment

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/self-v-name/5f4a7caf8815453dba0f32e4

4 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.7K Messages

•

225.4K Points

I would be surprised if bderoes was unaware of the technical significance of the "reenactment" keyword being applied to IMDb title pages to which the "documentary" genre has also been assigned. Unless I'm mistaken, bderoes' point is that Hamilton is not even a documentary, as how notably not a single credit in the whole thing is a self credit. There is not even a narrator credit. Some documentaries contain reenactments, but when the entirety of a titled movie constitutes depiction, the movie cannot be a documentary. In order to form a documentary out of it, the content would have to be extended in such a way as to include interviews of real people discussing the events depicted in the reenactment portions of the overall movie.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

4 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.7K Messages

•

225.4K Points

In a way, the recordings of stand-up comedy and concert performances are not documentaries either, but yet they are not depictions. The recordings are of people not portraying anything in particular, just like people being interviewed for a documentary or caught on camera doing something that isn't a rendition of a fictional thing or a historical thing.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

4 years ago

angelopilla47

120 Messages

•

1.6K Points

@Grayson

Even the employees of IMDb aren't even understanding what we are talking about. They hire people that don't have a clue about anything. I don't want Hamilton to be EXCLUDED from IMDb. I'm only saying that this live performance shouldn't be considered a MOVIE, like Citizen Kane. It is THEATRE, not CINEMA.

4 years ago

Gravity98

31 Messages

•

514 Points

First, No one wants Hamilton removed from IMDb. That's not the argument. Some just want it categorized better. Including not appearing in the Top 250 movie list. Documentaries don't appear in this list. Video games don't. TV movies don't. Spielberg's Duel is ineligible. Why should Hamilton, entirely made for the stage, have the privilege?

IMDb should consider adding a category called "Theatrical performance" or something similar to cover on-stage performances. After all, the name "Database" implies meticulous, accurate sorting and categorizing, does it not?

Second, the self credit argument would be void if they added this new category. It would work like Video Games currently work. For example, Keanu Reeves has an acting credit in Cyberpunk 2077, which is listed as: Cyberpunk 2077 (Video Game).

4 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.7K Messages

•

225.4K Points

That's the thing. Except for documentaries and "documentaries" (concerts), any material running longer than 45 minutes and originally screened at the box office is considered cinematic by IMDb. Neither production design type nor depiction immersion level is really the key in that concept.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

4 years ago

jeorj_euler

10.7K Messages

•

225.4K Points

4 years ago

On the subject at hand, I'm the odd man out, among IMDb non-staff who have thus far provided feedback on the matter, in this thread or earlier threads. The actors in the stage play are not portraying their respective selves let alone behaving as their respective real selves, and the recording of the event does not represent a "behind the scenes" look, therefore it cannot be a documentary. I would be interested to know if any other recorded stage plays have been categorized as documentary on IMDb, because they ought not. Stage performances of this kind are not concerts. They are not seminars. They are not stand-up comedy acts in any kind of way that "live studio audience" sitcoms are not. I've not seen Hamilton, though. Is interaction between the performers and the audience a staple of the recorded event? If so, that could be a problem to the perspective I've put forth.

jeorj_euler

10.7K Messages

•

225.4K Points

Update: I've seen Hamilton (seeing it sometime in late February of 2021), and my view hasn't changed, but I feel like one particular thing in movie makes it a borderline case. Right at the beginning, the location and date of the stage performance is displayed on screen. Not even situation comedies ("sitcoms") recorded in front of live studio audiences contain such indicators at the start of their episodes, as that kind of thing is reserved for the end credits sequence when immersion is concluded.

— Jeorj Euler, an IMDb regular registrant

4 years ago

Peter_pbn

Champion

•

14.4K Messages

•

330K Points

4 years ago

So, Hamilton is nominated for a Golden Globe - as a movie musical.

(edited)

plur62

280 Messages

•

6K Points

@Peter_pbn LOL, these awards have lost all credibility in recent years.

4 years ago

angelopilla47

120 Messages

•

1.6K Points

@Peter_pbn Since when The Golden Globes are a reference for anything?

4 years ago

angelopilla47

120 Messages

•

1.6K Points

4 years ago

Hamilton shouldn't be in top 250 because it is not a movie.

Hamilton shouldn't be in the results when we search for feature films because it is not a movie.

Hamilton will not be nominated for the Academy Awards because it is not a movie.

Hamilton is a capture of a live performance so it is not a movie.

Again: Hamilton is not a movie.

Thanks.

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Hamilton is not a movie.

ACT_1

8.5K Messages

•

176.2K Points

About Hamilton
angelo_pilla
Wed, Jul 29, 2020
Hamilton, a Broadway show captured live...should not be considered a feature film...
https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/about-hamilton/5f4a7cb48815453dba0ff736

- - -

Hamilton is not a movie and shouldn't be on top 250.
angelopilla47
Mon, Nov 16, 2020
Hamilton is not a movie. It is a capture of a live performance, like films about rock concerts or stand-up shows.
https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/hamilton-is-not-a-movie-and-shouldnt-be-on-top-250/5fb3580c762a722b89c6097c

- - -

Hamilton and the Oscars
angelopilla47
Thu, Dec 24, 2020
Do you know why Hamilton is not appearing in ANY list of 2020 best movies?
Because IT IS NOT a movie....
https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/hamilton-and-the-oscars/5fe487951544d52a90aa0717

4 years ago

angelopilla47

120 Messages

•

1.6K Points

4 years ago

Everything we see in Hamilton, from the performances to the wardrobe and the scenery, are NOT created for a movie, but for a theatre show. The camera is there only to register something, not to create. That's why Hamilton shouldn't be considered a movie. The Oscars know it, but IMDb is insisting with this absurdity. Hamilton is the only live performance on Top 250. It shouldn't be along real movies like Citizen Kane or The Godfather.

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Not a movie.

ACT_1

8.5K Messages

•

176.2K Points

Hamilton and the Oscars
angelopilla47
Thu, Dec 24, 2020
Do you know why Hamilton is not appearing in ANY list of 2020 best movies?
Because IT IS NOT a movie...
https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/hamilton-and-the-oscars/5fe487951544d52a90aa0717

- - -

https://www.imdb.com/chart/top

Top Rated Movies
Top 250 as rated by IMDb Users

Rank & Title IMDb Rating
1. The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 9.2
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111161/reference

2. The Godfather (1972) 9.1
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/reference

3. The Godfather: Part II (1974) 9.0
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071562/reference

59. Hamilton (2020) 8.4
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8503618/reference

96. Citizen Kane (1941) 8.3
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/reference

4 years ago

ACT_1

8.5K Messages

•

176.2K Points

4 years ago

IMDb Community Forums > IMDb > IMDb.com

Recordings of Musicals Such as Hamilton (2020) Should not Appear on Top 250 List
cd95
Tue, Jul 21, 2020
... it is a recording of a Broadway performance and not a film
in the same way that The Godfather (1972) is a film, for example.
https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/recordings-of-musicals-such-as-hamilton-2020-should-not-appear-on-top-250-list/5f4a7cb38815453dba0fcc35

jeorj_euler

10.7K Messages

•

225.4K Points

4 years ago

Should this thread be an "idea"-type thread instead of a "question"-type thread?

angelopilla47

Hamilton and the Oscars

Gravity98

gromit82

Gravity98

Maxence_G

Gravity98

honolulu_styles

Gravity98

honolulu_styles

Gravity98

imdbmember

Gravity98

imdbmember

Gravity98

bderoes

Gravity98

imdbmember

Gravity98

imdbmember

angelo_pilla

Michelle

angelo_pilla

Marco

plur62

MykolaYeriomin

Marco

cyber_turnip

jeorj_euler

jeorj_euler

angelopilla47

Gravity98

jeorj_euler

Grayson

Marco

bderoes

jeorj_euler

Marco

ACT_1

jeorj_euler

jeorj_euler

angelopilla47

Gravity98

jeorj_euler

jeorj_euler

jeorj_euler

Peter_pbn

plur62

angelopilla47

angelopilla47

ACT_1

angelopilla47

ACT_1

ACT_1

jeorj_euler

Related Conversations

Helpful Widget