It's Such a Beautiful Day to please help me solve this problem

@VonPunk​ This is not true, see The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977) or Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair (2011) for example. The entire cast and crew that worked on or appears in the film is credited, which is absolutely as it should be.

In this particular case, the feature film version of "It's Such a Beautiful Day" has more ratings than the three short films combined; it's obvious that this is the version most widely seen. It's a fact that the voice of the narrator you hear in the film is that of Don Herztfeldt, and that Sara Cushman provides the voice of the doctor. This should be reflected on IMDb's cast & crew page.

@timothy_gray_el34lojg1aih1​ Hi! As mentioned by @VonPunk it is against our guidelines to add the cast, if there is any other wrong listing it should be deleted from there instead.

Cheers!

@Bethanny​ The listings I mentioned are not wrong, these are high-profile movies and the cast is highly pertinent and essential information to anyone seeking out any IMDb page. There is absolutely no logical justification for not having this information on the cast & crew page.

@VonPunk​ @Bethanny​ The guidelines you guys mentioned only apply to titles which are later released as TV episodes. There is no mention whatsoever of short films reedited into features.

The title I referred to in this post is not a "shell" listing; it is a page representing a specific and unique work (that just happens to be made from previously released material). Just like the title pages I mentioned above (The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh & Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair), they were originally released in separate installments, and had to be substantially altered before taking the form they are seen in today.

For reference, this is what an actual shell listing looks like: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6318844/

Not only is the cast information absent, the entire crew information is absent. The only reason this page exists is so that IMDb can present a complete and accurate representation of the programming of the anthology series that released it. Contrast that with the examples I referred to above, and the one that is the subject of this post, and you will see that these are two very different situations.

In the case of It's Such a Beautiful Day (2012) and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977), the modified feature-film version is out and away the most widely seen version of the work. It would be utterly ridiculous for me to do as you suggest and delete all of the cast and crew information from one of the most well-known films in the Disney Animated Canon, forcing curious viewers to click through the connections page just to see basic information about the title, just to conform to a misread and irrelevant guideline.

Take a break from thumbing up each others comments and pay attention to a) what I'm saying and b) what the guidelines you cite actually say. You guys are both confidently wrong.

@timothy_gray_el34lojg1aih1​ I purely responded to why your updates were likely declined based off past knowledge of such incidents, IMDb use their own discretion to what they allow and do not in these cases. I think Bethanny was meaning any credits on It's Such a Beautiful Day (2012) not on any past titles were it has been allowed like 2 of Tarantino's entries. The rules have changed over time, they often do not force changes retroactively so old entries are fine.

If you want to plead your case that's fine too.

@VonPunk​ If I came across as snarky/rude/condescending in my reply I apologize. I kinda lost my temper. I still adamantly maintain that the rule you mentioned does not and should not apply in this case; however, there are probably nicer ways of expressing that opinion.

I wonder perhaps if my updates are getting denied for a completely unrelated reason; perhaps something having to do with the dual attributes of "(voice)" and "(uncredited)" is causing them to be automatically declined as invalid or something. That's just speculation on my part.

@Bethanny​ 

Would the cast perhaps be archive footage?

As with this example, Godfather trilogy is all archive footage???

@timothy_gray_el34lojg1aih1​ I appreciate that, thank you. I've fought my case before in the past, it can be frustrating, so I understand.

Uncredited voice roles are very hard to get up as they no longer generally accept them (due to past abuses) but again use their discretion if they do. I've gotten a few by last year on an animated series purely by proving with good evidence that it was factual info (video clips are a big help), so not impossible but very hard credits to add, so maybe the case.

@Peter_pbn​ I would accept "archive footage" as a compromise, although in this particular case I would find it kind of silly considering the animator was using his own footage and it was released only one year after the final short film in the trilogy. But it's still better than not having the cast information there at all, so I could live with it.

@timothy_gray_el34lojg1aih1​ Hi!

After further research it seems the title isn't eligible for an individual listing. Does it have any new footage cast or crew? Or is it just compilation of the other works?

Thanks!

@Bethanny​ The title is definitely eligible for an individual listing. The original trilogy was in three separate segments; the feature film version is seamlessly edited together. It has its own runtime, its own release date, and its own set of credits. This is why I used the example of The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh for comparison - it's a very similar situation to that film. The original short films are hard to find in their original form; the feature version is its own thing, by virtue of being combined the way it is. Not only that, but it has more or less overshadowed the original shorts from which it is made.

Deleting this title would be an absolute disaster; just look at the vast difference in the number of user ratings between the feature version and the individual shorts and you will see why. The individual shorts are important for historical reasons, but from 2012 onward, the vast majority of people who seek out this title are going to look for the feature version. And it is a different version; whether or not it contains new footage, it still had to be edited all over again and the final product is significantly different. Examples like The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh not only demonstrate a precedent that these titles have been allowed in the past, but also show why it is important and necessary to keep them.

Please don't make me regret ever bringing this issue to your attention, this title deserves to have its credits made accurate, not deleted.

@timothy_gray_el34lojg1aih1​ You can list as an Alternate Version on the titles that were compilated on this release.

Cheers!

@Bethanny​ I really don't feel like cheering right now, Bethanny.

@Witchillo​ Buddy, I’m on your side, I’m just as outraged about this as you are. I had no intention of causing this to happen. If it makes you feel any better, I have been having a very ugly day every day for the past week due to worrying about this whole situation.

@sienel​ It's different in that "It's Such a Beautiful Day" is not an anthology, even though it combines three shorts. The three combined shorts make up a trilogy that tells a complete story about a single character. The feature version is edited seamlessly together such that the viewer cannot tell where one installment ends and the next one begins.

It also differs in that the feature version is (or was) the most widely seen version of this work in the database, overshadowing the shorts that were released originally. A similar case can be found in Disney's "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh", which also made up of stories originally released as shorts, but gained greater notoriety after being edited into a feature. There were a lot more than 43 votes on "It's Such a Beautiful Day" before being deleted.

The feature version of "It's Such a Beautiful Day" was named by several critics as one of the best movies of 2012. It is represented by a single Wikipedia page. Most other movie websites list it as a feature film with a 2012 release date. If anything, it had a much, much better case for being a valid IMDb entry than the two examples you named above.

I haven't seen the Spike & Mike anthology you refer to, but I did go to one of those Oscar Shorts theatrical presentations back in 2019. Having a feature version of that title is a lot more convenient when making lists than not having one. I remember they did have their own title cards and opening titles for that one.

@timothy_gray_el34lojg1aih1​ Yup this is the main point of interest, it's all one seamless story, not an anthology of three stories

I take back everything I said about the credit situation on this title. It's not important. All I want now is for things to go back to the way they were before I created this stupid post. Nobody was complaining about the situation except for me. This title was not causing problems and should never have been deleted.

@matthew_scott_7622690 😀

??

timothy_gray_el34lojg1aih1
Sunday, April 7th, 2024
It's Such a Beautiful Day to please help me solve this problem
I've tried to submit this correction many times 
but every time it gets rejected for some reason

In 2012, Don Herztfeldt took his series of three short films about a character named Bill who suffers from a psychological breakdown

Everything Will Be OK (2006), 

I Am So Proud of You (2008), 

It's Such a Beautiful Day (2011)

and recut them into one feature length film

It's Such a Beautiful Day (2012)   ........

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/its-such-a-beautiful-day-to-please-help-me-solve-this-problem/661220ef2611fd1b79b9d897

- - -

Wayback Machine

It's Such a Beautiful Day (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2396224/

Saved 119 times between September 28, 2012 and April 6, 2024.

.

Matthew: Please comment in the thread where this problem arose:

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/its-such-a-beautiful-day-to-please-help-me-solve-this-problem/661220ef2611fd1b79b9d897

@Col_Needham​ Thank you.

Will the title also be restored to all of the user lists it had appeared on previously? Or will we need to manually add the title back onto any lists of ours it was on?

@Fergenaprido​ I believe it should be restored automatically. 

@Col_Needham As of yet, they have not. No User lists are displayed on the main title page, and the URL does not work: https://www.imdb.com/lists/tt2396224/

I also checked some lists of my own that I knew I had it on, and it's not (yet) showing up.

Now all the ratings have disappeared as well. They were there when the title was first restored, but now are wiped. The reviews have been retained, however. Hopefully this can be fixed as well.

@Fergenaprido​ Thanks — we are looking into this. 

@Col_Needham Ratings, Lists, and Polls still haven't been reinstated - only new ones added since the page was restored are displaying. Reviews from before and all other associated data are there, however.

@Fergenaprido​ Thanks, yes, the appropriate trouble tickets are still open with the appropriate teams.  Sorry for the delay.  In the meantime additional steps have been taken to prevent this from happening again (and to be clear, it has never happened on anywhere like this scale ever before in 30+ years, hence it taking longer to recover).