16 Messages
•
392 Points
Separate background actors/extras from regular cast on movies
I find the addition of extras/background actors to IMDb increasingly distracting. During the production phase most of them do not even add an "uncredited" but try to sneak in as normal cast member, even though they know they will not get a credit - and while doing so totally clutter up the cast list, making it incredibly hard to figure out who is actually ~in~ the movie.
And when the cast list gets checked at release time, they get demoted to "uncredited" only but are still listed. This totally dilutes the "uncredited" attribution in my opinion, and still clutters up the cast listing with people who have about the same value as the set deco (and nobody lists the furniture on IMDb, right?). Not to talk about the fact, that there is not even any verification if that person a) has even worked as an extra on the movie and b) is shown (versus got cut during editing).
I'm absolutely certain, that there are several "actors" on IMDb whose filmography is entirely fictional. People who add themselves during production and then get either an "uncredited" credit in the end, or sometimes even a real credit (in cases where movies get released without any IMDb or producers staff checking cast/crew lists against actual credits like this happens often with small indies). I know I've seen a few in the past which I was sure were entirely fake, and I have not even been looking for them.
My request: please create a separate section or page for background/extras, so they don't get mixed up with real cast at least; I mean, right from the beginning so there is never any question if they are speaking cast or extras. It should also reduce the temptation to add fake credits and help IMDb staff to identify actors who try to cheat with their credits when those people add themselves to regular cast but repeatedly don't show up in the actual movie credits. It might even help with unknown/little known actors who are trying to boost their filmography that way in order to manipulate their starmeter. Or, update your policies to make clear that extras are not allowed be added and remove them during a credits update entirely (instead of just updating their listing to "uncredited" which happens without any verification if that person actually was in the movie). I would prefer the latter but if not possible I think it would be very helpful for everyone to put them at least separate from the cast to avoid confusion.
Thanks.
And when the cast list gets checked at release time, they get demoted to "uncredited" only but are still listed. This totally dilutes the "uncredited" attribution in my opinion, and still clutters up the cast listing with people who have about the same value as the set deco (and nobody lists the furniture on IMDb, right?). Not to talk about the fact, that there is not even any verification if that person a) has even worked as an extra on the movie and b) is shown (versus got cut during editing).
I'm absolutely certain, that there are several "actors" on IMDb whose filmography is entirely fictional. People who add themselves during production and then get either an "uncredited" credit in the end, or sometimes even a real credit (in cases where movies get released without any IMDb or producers staff checking cast/crew lists against actual credits like this happens often with small indies). I know I've seen a few in the past which I was sure were entirely fake, and I have not even been looking for them.
My request: please create a separate section or page for background/extras, so they don't get mixed up with real cast at least; I mean, right from the beginning so there is never any question if they are speaking cast or extras. It should also reduce the temptation to add fake credits and help IMDb staff to identify actors who try to cheat with their credits when those people add themselves to regular cast but repeatedly don't show up in the actual movie credits. It might even help with unknown/little known actors who are trying to boost their filmography that way in order to manipulate their starmeter. Or, update your policies to make clear that extras are not allowed be added and remove them during a credits update entirely (instead of just updating their listing to "uncredited" which happens without any verification if that person actually was in the movie). I would prefer the latter but if not possible I think it would be very helpful for everyone to put them at least separate from the cast to avoid confusion.
Thanks.
nightvision25
16 Messages
•
392 Points
11 years ago
Have you tried sorting by name? The list is now a mixed collection of actual cast and tons of extras - and you can't immediately see that they are extras, esp in the time until a movie is officially released most extras don't even have that uncredited attribute.
I think the way IMDb allows the use of uncredited right now, is devaluating the database. In its own guidelines it says "A typical example is when a famous actor has an unbilled cameo appearance in a film." - that's the right use.
But not for every single extra, who may or may not be seen in the movie. The submission guidelines even say, "For cast/acting appearances, you must be identifiable and featured on-screen in the final released cut of the film. In other words, it's not enough to have worked on a production: your scenes must be included in the final cut and it must be possible to easily identify your appearance.." but they get ignored. For one, almost all extras submit their credit WITHOUT the uncredited attribute initially (just check studio movies in post-production.... 90%+ are listed as full cast members). But secondly, no one checks if they are actually in the movie (and the extras can't even know if they make the final cut when they submit their credit during production in most cases).
And because of the unheeding allowance of extras (and the lack of verification on all projects so uncredited roles slip through as credited), there are TONS of really dubious IMDb pages consisting only of extra work (some even credited because they slip through) and being audience member in talkshows.
In my opinion, IMDb really needs to so something about the misuse of credits for non-credited work, and separating the extras out from the cast into a dedicated section would be at least a small step forward.
0
0
Peter_pbn
Champion
•
14.5K Messages
•
330.9K Points
11 years ago
1
davidah_ca
Champion
•
1.9K Messages
•
92.6K Points
11 years ago
Characters like 'Man in Bar' is hardly helpful if the scene involves a crowded bar, or if the film has four or five bar scenes with different actors in each one.
If IMDb made an explicit policy that Contributors should submit deletes for (uncredited) cast credits that cannot be easily identified I think the problem would be significantly reduced.
1
vhavnal
227 Messages
•
11.3K Points
11 years ago
sleepingbeauty , you hit the nail on the head..that is true..they do. IMDb has no way of policing these "con people"..the thing is, when you are able to get your starmeter that high, sometimes your name will appear ahead of the MAIN LEADS of the movie, it has happened many times. e.g, this guy (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2252255/) , he is a NOBODY background extra but his starmeter is high due to manipulation which means he will appear in the top 3 section of a major title until the film is released and verified and credit order added...
most don't even add the "uncredited" tag because they are using that movie to get more roles in others as they want their casting director to find their names on IMDb under a big banner/budget movie.
2
mightyemperor
Champion
•
1.9K Messages
•
146.1K Points
11 years ago
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...
0
0
mightyemperor
Champion
•
1.9K Messages
•
146.1K Points
11 years ago
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000042/n...
I'm juggling the same problem, but won't put the time in until this issue is resolved (and it might require a new thread here or there to deal with the specific issues):
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000042/n...
1
0
john_brawley
14 Messages
•
340 Points
6 years ago
18
0
zsingerb
3 Messages
•
80 Points
5 years ago
0
Alansmithee007
8 Messages
•
142 Points
1 year ago
This is still a continued problem. I understand people wanting credit, but we use hundreds of BG in a film / TV Show or whatever. If you speak you get a screen credit (if it's SAG, not always the same for Non-Union) and could be checked by the end credit's. If it's a star actor doing a fun cameo and it can be confirmed then that is fun. There needs to be a solution, with the problem being you can't certify a BG person. They are BG, which makes them "Cast" but more part of the Crew. But since again you can't confirm this, then they either shouldn't be allowed in the "Uncredited" or set up a Background Performer section. It really has become a little silly. I have even seen people at comic con who are BG performers with no screen credits or a ton of "Uncredited" setting up a place for autographs. I have worked with some and know they are BG and not a speaking cast member. Please find a solution... I know this thread only started 10 years ago... so I guess we will see.
0
0
Alansmithee007
8 Messages
•
142 Points
1 year ago
I'm not understanding this flood of "Uncredited" names coming up in the cast? If you had a line or were a Stand-In, or stunts, dancer then you get a screen credit. Its confirmable. But I have been seeing tons of "Uncredited" that are Background Performers. I know some as it's movies I have worked on and know they are not speaking rolls, or specialty, just someone who created a name like "Class Teacher" and put it up. I'm not unsympathetic, just there should be a fix.
This is still a continued problem. I understand people wanting credit, but we use hundreds of BG in a Film / TV Show or whatever. If you speak you get a screen credit (if it's SAG, not always the same for Non-Union) and could be checked by the end credit's. If it's a star actor doing a fun cameo and it can be confirmed then that is fun. There needs to be a solution, with the problem being you can't certify a BG person. They are BG, which makes them a part of the film but more part of the Crew, not cast I feel. But since again you can't confirm this, then they either shouldn't be allowed in the "Uncredited" or set up a Background Performer section. It really has become a little silly. I have even seen people at comic con who are BG performers with no screen credits or a ton of "Uncredited" setting up a place for autographs. I have worked with some and know they are BG and not a speaking cast member. Please find a solution... I know there is a thread only started 10 years ago... so I guess we will see.
I'm interested in hearing thoughts on this if you have opinions, but be open minded and kind. Lets have a talk / discussion, not rudeness.
3