717 Messages
•
15.2K Points
Multi-part single story on TV: should this always be "mini series" rather than single "TV movie"?
Am I right that if a single story is shown as 2 or more parts on TV, each with its own title sequence and credits (which may differ between parts), this should always be listed on IMDB as "mini series" (with several parts) rather than single TV movie? I ask because I've found various titles which were first shown in several parts but which are listed on IMDB as TV movie, with a single merged cast list rather than multiple parts with distinct cast lists.
An example is Butterfly Collectors (1999) tt0198072 which was shown in two parts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-sfY3ilKyg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSt3LvPhu_8 which Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_Collectors says were shown on 19 and 20 April 1999. I've submitted a title correction 220214-132354-964000 which is stuck in "title correction hell", with title corrections backlogged to 7 February. Since title corrections are not included in Track Contribution, I don't (and won't ever) know whether this has been accepted or rejected - unless I see that it is published.
I've come across other titles which have been listed as a single TV movie, but I'm reluctant to try to get them corrected if it's going to take so long to see the change - I'm starting to lose the will to live ;-)
Fran
Employee
•
3.6K Messages
•
36.3K Points
4 years ago
Hello martin_695862,
We handle these on a case-by-case basis, often depending on how the title is marketed. If the title was marketed as a two part movie event then the listing should be standalone tv movies with separate title listing for each "Part".
If the title was marketed as a series event, then the listing qualifies as a TV-mini-series listing, where each part is listed as episode titles.
You can find information on our help guide.
1
0
Peter_pbn
Champion
•
15.7K Messages
•
344.2K Points
4 years ago
Several can mean more than two. It may be relevant whether it's two parts or more.
Not true. Now that the oldest unprocessed item in the processing times page is from 24 February, you can assume that your edit has been rejected.
(edited)
0
0