Skip to main content

Champion

 • 

1.7K Messages

 • 

55.6K Points

Wed, Oct 9, 2019 8:14 PM

Should this title even exist?

This isn't a movie or anything but a packaging of movies into a DVD set. It does not seem like something that should be listed on IMDb as all the 50 movies should be listed separately.

Killer Creature Features: 50 Movie Mega Pack

Responses

1.7K Messages

 • 

61.2K Points

a year ago

Definitely no. There are loads of similar DVD releases with different films on a one DVD package.

Champion

 • 

3.4K Messages

 • 

138.9K Points

a year ago

Adrian,

In my opinion, a repackaged DVD of past film titles should not have an IMDb title page.

However, this information should be included in each movie title's Distributors section with the distributor name, year, region, type (DVD) and attribute (Killer Creature Features: 50 Movie Mega Pack). 

1.7K Messages

 • 

61.2K Points

a year ago

DVD distributors should have attributes like that? Is that listed in some FAQ? At least it sounds a bit overkill to me. If some film is released in multiple DVD collections/double features/volumes/special editions/gift sets/etc (like many of these probably are, since some are most likely in public domain), this could be tricky.

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

93.9K Points

a year ago

I think it should be a list instead of a title.
Unfortunately, lists are not searchable within IMDb.
But using google "Killer Creature Features: 50 Movie Mega Pack site:imdb.com/list", found:
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls066260313/
Looks like the same list as under the Connections section of the title Adrian found.

From the help:
Title eligibility (nothing prohibitive here), and refers us to ...
Title Formatting guide (don't see anything here either)
hmmm...

Champion

 • 

3.4K Messages

 • 

224.9K Points

a year ago

A Mill Creek 50-in-1 DVD is certainly not eligible as a separate title on IMDb: it adds practically nothing new to movies themselves and just compiles them as a multi-feature bargain. 

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

93.9K Points

a year ago

I'm re-watching the first disc of Early Women Filmmakers (2017), and I wonder if all the questioned titles in this thread are legit under the following premise: each is the shell for an alternate release of multiple titles.
https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/cast-acting-credits-guidelines/GH3JZC74FVYKKFMD?ref_=helpart_nav_6#general
If a title is later shown as an episode of a series then it should be added as a shell episode. No filmography credits relating to the original title should be added to the shell to avoid crediting the work twice on the name pages of those involved. If the individual contributed to new material relating solely to that episode i.e. hosting segment then they are valid credits and may be added to the shell episode). Please also add a trivia item and a movie connection linking the episode to the original title page.
Why can't a dvd with multiple titles be a "series"? Seems at least as legit as a YouTube series.

Champion

 • 

1.7K Messages

 • 

55.6K Points

If movies can be series (which they aren't), then franchises should be listed under a single title with each movie as an "episode". That doesn't make any sense. YouTube series make sense as they are generally created by one individual. These 50 title DVDs are most public domain movies that someone collected and put a bunch on the DVD to make it somewhat appealing to buy. They are not interconnect and have no relationship to each other.

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

93.9K Points

But we already have anthology series that are TV airings of pre-existing films:
Great Performances and American Masters come to mind. Not all of their episodes aired first in theatres, but many were. And the only connection I know of is that someone at PBS decided these were Great or Masters.

I'm not convinced, but the "shell" construct sort of fits here.

How about this title, available on Amazon streaming:
Betty Boop - Vol. 1: 22 Cartoon Classics - 2 Hours (2017) (TV Movie)

This is simply the stringing together of theatrical cartoons released in the 1930s. But it's a new product, released to the public.

Champion

 • 

1.7K Messages

 • 

55.6K Points

You touch on, but don't see to realize, the difference between Great Performance and American Masters and these 50 movie dvds. First, they actually air on television so there would be some confusion for users if they logged in and looked for episodes and they didn't exist. Second, I believe these series were drivers for the shell concept because they aired a mixed of original and repackaged content.

There is nothing original in any of these 50 package dvd deals. It's a marketing gimmick.

And, no, that Betty Boop should not be listed either. This has been discussed previously when someone turned Tom and Jerry shorts into a series.

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

93.9K Points

I don't see anything original in the airing of a Great Performances episode that was previously released in theatres, unless it's some introduction, or worse, pledge breaks.

I'm just positing that "airing" has become a broader definition, and am wondering aloud whether a dvd release isn't just as good as streaming.

So long as Betty Boop is presented historically correctly, as contrasted with this title:
Betty Boop (1930) (TV Series), where now it looks like this was a TV series DURING 1930, I don't know that I object to documenting (as a title on IMDb) a streaming product that's a compilation of older material. Therefore a dvd box set seems ok too.

Slippery slopes...

40 Messages

 • 

1.9K Points

The consensus is clearly NO. However, I can see that adding a category of accessible LISTS could prove useful for quite a lot of people with special interests in one type of genre.

Champion

 • 

1.7K Messages

 • 

55.6K Points

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

32 Messages

 • 

1.2K Points

a year ago

I doubt that anyone is looking for DVD packages of theme-related movies on IMDb. I believe OP is correct about removing this title.

Champion

 • 

1.7K Messages

 • 

55.6K Points

a year ago

It seems odd that it's been 2 days without an official response and it is still listed as a question. Can we get a response so we know whether we should submit these titles for deletion.

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

93.9K Points

a year ago

Let me try to solidify my argument, without necessarily endorsing that IMDb keep these titles.

If TV channel GRIT had curated these films:
Western Outlaws: 50 Movie MegaPack (2016 Video)
into a series, and given the series a name, then IMDb rules allow for the creation of a shell series:
If a title is later shown as an episode of a series then it should be added as a shell episode. No filmography credits relating to the original title should be added to the shell to avoid crediting the work twice on the name pages of those involved. If the individual contributed to new material relating solely to that episode i.e. hosting segment then they are valid credits and may be added to the shell episode). Please also add a trivia item and a movie connection linking the episode to the original title page.
GRIT happens to be an OTA (Over the Air, perhaps also cable?) channel. If it were a streaming (internet) service, the shell would also be allowed.

I don't see why, just because the delivery mechanism was DVD, the shell should not be allowed. Titles that are direct-to-video for their initial release are eligible. Why not re-releases?

And it _IS_ nice to have a  complete list of the films somewhere, which Amazon product listings often omit. (If IMDb had a list-search ability on the horizon, then a list would suffice.)

1.7K Messages

 • 

61.2K Points

a year ago

There are literally hundreds of DVD releases ”out there” (and many of those in Amazon) that include several movies. Some might have even 20 or 50 films in one package. Many probably public domain, some borderline bootlegs (yes, even in Amazon), some smaller indy films, some English dubbed TV versions of international films etc etc. Anything goes, as long as they can bend the copyright rules (and like I said, some are actually licensed, so I’m not accusing anyone particular).


But no, these doesn’t belong to IMDb (meaning the DVD releases - individual films of course should be added). In the end, it’s like adding all Back to the Future DVD/BD releases to IMDb: ”Back to the Future: 25th Anniversary Trilogy”, ”Back to the Future 30th Anniversary Trilogy”, ”Back to the Future: The Complete Adventures”...


There are sites like DVDcompare (Rewind) that lists and compares different DVD/Blu-ray releases. That (and similar sites) are a place for this kind of info.