Worth pointing out that Tubi and Crackle streaming services are somewhat different from Netflix,,Hulu, HBO/Cinemax, Showtime, Disney, Paramount and Apple streaming services. And then there's the model employed by Amazon and Vudu streaming services (but Vudu thus far doesn't seem to be an original distributor). That's like three similar-yet-distinct models.

@Peter_pbn​ Here's the problem: a feature film released on YouTube to reach wider audiences is not a YouTube video. Or at least not only that. 

It makes it all the more confusing considering that YouTube is also, to a point, a paid sreaming service, which as Adrian pointed out, should not be treated as a direct-to-video. Even considering the fact that most of the content on YouTube is free, there is a paid mode that removes commercials and there are also options for paid subscriptions to certain creators.

It's one thing that YouTube videos are eligible, but not all of them are movies, per se (I mean, commercials and music videos are also there, both of those are categorized as video and I am okay with that). It's entirely another that there are legit features released foremost on YouTube. For example aer working for years on Collaborator (2022) and initial screenings Georg Rockall-Schmidt decided that the best course of action is releasing the movie on YouTube for it to reach wider options. 

@MykolaYeriomin​ 

I didn't realize you meant YouTube, which I don't think anyone considers a paid streaming service. Sure, you could pay but why would you when you can remove the ads with an adblocker?

Everything that I have seen that is primarily released on YouTube is classified as Made for Video. A separate IMDb guide also seems to state the same thing. I think they are correctly being marked as Made for Video.

@adrian​ I don't think that's a correct approach at all. 

As I've said earlier it's literally piling everyhing that wasn't made on a studio budget and is not on 'high-end' streaming in a ghetto which will inevitably result in great movies being underseen. Already did, in fact.

@MykolaYeriomin​ 

If a film is never released in a theater, and is only released on the Internet (whether "high-end" or "low-end," regardless of how those terms should be defined), why should it not qualify as a Video?

https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/titles/submitting-a-web-series-or-online-video/G4VEJJHEW2Y5745W

Submitting a web series or online video

@MykolaYeriomin​ 

Literally, that is why direct to video was created. It is stuff that does not have a studio budget and didn't have high profile releases.

@adrian​ I mean, thanks for the heads up (showing how this bias works).

Direct-to-video became a thing in late 1970's to early 1980's, because it was an alternate distribution method. It was since adopted and milked to death by big studios, which release a TON of moderately budgeted direct-to-video movies. Mostly sequels without theatrical potential (but with potential to make some money) such as Hellraiser: Inferno (2000), I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer (2006) and Wrong Turn 4: Bloody Beginnings (2011). Then there is also a market for direct-to-video insructional/specific videos such as Maximum Potential (1987) or How to Get... Revenge (1987). Then it is also a purgatory for things like A Good Man (2014), which is a Steven Seagal movie and it says everything you need to know about it.

You try hard to reach wider audiences in any way and your hard work becomes piled with literal cash-grabs, very few of which have artistic merit. It's a ghetto logic.

You still haven't shown how these aren't "direct to video", the more you try to explain the more you are actually saying they are direct to video.

If there is a bias against direct to video, it is most likely because most output is terrible. The only way to change that is to make better direct to video features. In the 1970s, there was a huge bias against drinking canned beer. Mostly because the beer in cans was cheap and terrible and they hadn't figured out how to keep the beer from having a metallic taste. That changed when better technology came along and better was available in cans. Instead of arguing against direct to video, how about making direct to video something that people enjoy?

@adrian​ That first comment of yours sounds terribly like confirmation bias. The only possible explanation why my comments "prove" something to you is because you cling to your side of debate. Essentially, enforcing the same bias, but from a different perspective. It's a bit like racists who hide their racist bias by saying that the movie is bad, when the only thing bugging them is the color of skin of people in the cast or themes which are too close to home. 

Distinction between what's direct-to-video is dying off, so trying to say "Why you're not making good direct-to-video, then" is easily answered as such: because no one does. Your comparison should appeal to me, considering that I'm both a filmmaker and a beer aficionado, but it misses the mark completely, in my humble opinion.

It's essentially the same type of debate as whether distinction is needed between web-series and TV series. The answer is no, because distinction is rapidly disappearing.

Only the YouTube videos that are part of the "Movies & TV" channel (UClgRkhTL3_hImCAmdLfDE4g) within YouTube would be considered belonging to the YouTube's subscription-based streaming service, as they conform to the model of having every item be for purchase, rental or free-with-ads, and digital rights management (DRM) software may be involved. Thus far, none of those particular entries premiered on YouTube "Movies & TV", so there is significant irrelevance of the program to the subject of the thread here at hand.

@pi77​

You posted your other thread only one day ago. IMDb staff mostly take weekends off, and even during weekdays patience is the name of the game.

Also, you shouldn't hijack other people's threads to ask about your own thread, except where the subject matters overlap. 

@plur62​ There are multiple categories to movies. Judging a no budget expermental feature made on digital by the same standards as any of the aforementioned is a disservice (sometimes an insult) to both categories. Not because there are high standards (because it's mere elitism and gatekeeping), but because you're completely disregarding variety to film and film experience. 

None of the mentioned indeed, applies, because Marco Romano is an experimental filmmaker in the vein of Stan Brakhage, Andy Warhol (specifically Empire) and Nigel Tomm (another case when I don't remember every single movie of his being direct-to-video, although none of them are on YouTube, they're on IMDb itself). Stuff like that has its place in filmmaking. In case of Romano, his experiments with formats and use of digital filmmaking are not always clear in their intent, but some of the results are fascinating (not the one you've picked, mind you). To me personally, at least. I'm not saying anyone will enjoy them or that anyone should, for that matter.

I don't think that I have a saying in this, per se, because I was in Romano's movies a few times, so make of it what you will. 

@plur62​ Sorry for another reply, but I kinda wanted to share an addittional point I've remembered a bit later.

Samurai Vampire Bikers from Hell (1992) (somehow) had a theatrical release. Not to diss on Scott Shaw who seems to be trying hard and his best for decades, but here it is on YouTube, officially (if in a truncated version). Yes, it was shot on video, but released theatrically. Which automatically gives it equal footing with Citizen Kane (1941).

You might gatekeep harmless artistic experiments from being classified as "proper" movies all you want, but that logic already doesn't work on IMDb.

@MykolaYeriomin​ Regarding Nigel Tomm: All his director/writer/producer credits are (uncredited). He only has one credited entry, a Thanks credit for this film from Sergey A.: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10648562/reference/ Looking at the other people listed in the thanks section for this title, one might think that Sergey A. has added people to the thanks list of his film just to get these people an IMDb page...

@Marco​ I believe he had more. A semi-recent vandalism of my titles removed hundreds to thousands of special thanks credits and I believe I credited Tomm for inspiration at least once in a title that was added to IMDb. 

I believe the person who did that freaking mess (neither me nor IMDb staff is able to sort out so far) had the same logic as you, but regarding me. Except standards of 'known people' are so abstract, some of my personal friends disappeared from my titles, as well.

Even if A. did that for that very motive... So what? Is it somehow not eligibile by IMDb standards? No, it still is. The irony is that people think it somehow helps the discovery of the title and as someone who's been crediting known people for inspiration well over a decade: no, it's really not. It's literally just that: when I feel like my work relies on the insights of people, I will absolutely credit them. Courtesy thing.

I can probably pinpoint where I get that habit from: I first noticed filmmakers doing that with Jim Jarmusch on Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999) and it kinda struck me as something to do if you want to acknowledge that you're aware you're not in the vacuum and not deluding oneself with 'overwhelming originiality' of wha I do in the craft that relies on repeating after others to find your own style. I admit freely I was overdoing such credits early on, as well as "in memory of".

@MykolaYeriomin​ First of all, sorry for my rather late response, but here goes.

Even if A. did that for that very motive... So what? 

I was afraid you might ask that.

First of all, as you yourself say, the Thanks section is used by filmmakers to thank people who helped and/or inspired them. It tells me as an audience member who inspired a certain filmmaker. I might find this interesting and it therefore might help me discover other filmmakers I didn't know of. Using the Thanks section properly, helps the audience.

Being a database that uses (end) credits and knowing these credits have a real purpose, IMDb also lists these Thanks credits (as I feel they should).

If filmmakers start using the Thanks credits for the sole purpose of getting an IMDb name page for people who haven't already got one, the audiences can't rely on the Thanks credits anymore. Imagine if every filmmaker would do this. Obviously, this won't happen, but if you feel (as do I) that it would make the Thanks section pretty useless for audiences, why do you not have a problem with Sergey A. doing it? Or wouldn't you mind all films having Thanks sections for which you can't judge if they were really inspired and/or helped by the listed people or if the filmmakers have other motives for including these names?

Apart from the above, IMDb might have to reconsider their stance on listing all people listed in the end credits. If you think this last part is far fetched, it's really not. For the infamous 1 second film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6305258/reference/), at first, all producer credits were added to the title. However, because this film was going to list literally thousands of people as producer even though they didn't really have to do anything with the film (except donating a dollar), IMDb decided to group them: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2524320/ .

 Is it somehow not eligibile by IMDb standards? No, it still is.

There's this thing called circumventing the rules. This would be a very clear example of it. Do you agree with this assessment?

@Marco​ No I don't agree with that assessment for many reasons. Let's list at least some of them:

1) People already do that for decades. Constantly. There is a ton of people who attract attention by 'tagging' people they were inspired by in the end credits (and therefore on IMDb) since like 1990's. At the very least 2000's. I don't want to point out the names, but, I mean, I'm just not judgmental in general, unlike some people.

2) I like how you're praising an exception while I spend hours listing every person from some random webisode who is a Patreon supporter in some similar cases. Yes, that's difficult. We're that different in our approaches.  

You see, laziness. That's the only cornerstone of either going through every credit or trying to make a workaround in the rules, to do less. Ironically, I was considering myself a lazy person until I've discovered I am actually a workaholic.

2) 

Apart from the above, IMDb might have to reconsider their stance on listing all people listed in the end credits.

Because you said so?..  

It's bugging you, for unknown reasons. You try your best to justify your statements with logic, but it's pure emotion. You're distraught to see or encounter such things. And that's okay, as long as you're not trying to elevate it to some policy, some principle, some approach. Instead of finding the true reason why it's bugging you, you build a sandcastle of logic. 

I know, because I did that all the time, too. I've stopped, because at some point logic just stopped working. Because it doesn't work when you don't take into account that a lot of things in our mind are not inherently logical. 

@MykolaYeriomin​ 

Let's list at least some of them

Am I right in assuming there are reasons you've chosen not to share?

1) People already do that for decades.

Just to make sure we're on the same page; we're talking about listing people in the Thanks section of a film for the sole purpose of getting them an IMDb name page. I can't prove it, but given the fact that IMDb started in 1990 and wasn't as well-known in, say, 1995 or 2001 as it is today, I strongly doubt filmmakers did this over 20 years ago. That said, even if they did, the fact that more people do something doesn't mean it is right.

There are quite a bunch of people claiming the earth is flat but that doesn't mean it's true.

2) I like how you're praising an exception

Actually, I did not praise anything. I just gave the example of The 1 Second Film to show that if people try to circumvent the rules, it might force IMDb to act on this, nothing more, nothing less.

That said, I fail to see what my "praising an exception" and you adding lots of data to the database, has to do with our stance on filmmakers listing people in the Thanks credits of their work for the sole purpose of getting them an IMDb name page.

Because you said so?..  

Nope. But as I've shown with the example of The 1 Second Film, IMDb has chosen not to list all people listed in the end credits. I really don't believe I had any part in that decision.

It's bugging you, for unknown reasons.

I clearly stated that I feel it leads to the audience not being able to properly rely on the Thanks credits anymore if all filmmakers would start to do this and I stated it's a circumvention of the rules. You can of course disagree with me on this, but you can't say my reasons are unknown if I've explicitly mentioned them.

You try your best to justify your statements with logic, but it's pure emotion. You're distraught to see or encounter such things.

You do realize you don't really know me, don't you?

@Bethanny​ Great thanks for keeping us in the loop! 

So many contributors for such a long time haven't bothered to set title types according guidelines, and the infrastructure is such a question-raising mess now, that I pretty much don't bother to title-type as "direct-to-video" anything that wasn't verifiably originally released as on the Blu-ray/DVD or VHS cassette medium for home media playback, or likewise with anything broadcast over television (not necessarily in the United States where I live). However, in terms of title page creation, I mostly deal with short movies, so the rules concerning them may differ slightly from feature-length movies anyway.

@keyword_expert​ This will be really weird to explain in a few words, but I'll try. :)

So, in my 30 years I've never been to Moscow and I never want to until current Russian state morphs into something completely else. I believe last time I was in Russia was 2007. I was only in Sochi, where my mother was born (still being of mostly Ukrainian heritage) and where there were some relatives for quite some time. I really should add my maternal grandfather to IMDb, because he appears in a Soviet classic The Diamond Arm (1969), which was filmed there. Closest I've ever seen of him, since he died in the 1970's, more than twenty years before I was even born.

Way before it became a bit more widespread in 2020 thanks to COVID-19 Sergey A. developed an oddity of a filmmaking process where a lot of the people filmed themselves in second units and he then put it together. He's not the only person working that way (that's also how I ended up in movies by San-Marino experimental filmmaker extraordinaire Marco Romano), but I firmly believe he was and still is a unique case to try and make movies with that system on that scale. Movies that actually started to bring profit on an international level recently, as well as some awards. Jealousy of some people was ridiculous.

I haven't filmed anything for Sergey since early 2022, because after the invasion it not only becomes morally gray, but also legally problematic. That said, I'm incredibly concerned for him, because you can't be a filmmaker in a totalitarian state for too long without facing hardship and solidarity for that in filmmakers is kinda an overwhelming feeling.

I won't go into too much detail to preserve his anonimity for most of the world (he was forcefully deanonimized by authorities in Russia, to glee of a small cabal of haters), but he's facing jail time right now.

@MykolaYeriomin​ Thank you for that explanation. I am hoping for the best for your network of filmmakers. 

@keyword_expert​ Frankly, it's a bit in shambles, but I'm discovering I've learned so much in my twenty years as a filmmaker that I'm no longer a supporting player. It's an odd revelation. :)