rafael_levy's profile

6 Messages

 • 

314 Points

Sat, May 18, 2013 5:12 AM

Spoiler in character name not following IMDB rules (Star Trek Into Darkness)

At Star Trek Into Darkness page it is being reported that Benedict Cumberbatch character is Khan. This is a major plot spoiler for that movie.

Even though that is his character's name in the official cast listing, it is agains IMDBs policy to publish character names that are spoilers.

According to the guide at http://www.imdb.com/updates/guide/cha...

"Even if factually correct, character names that constitute spoilers must be avoided at all costs."
"Wherever possible, we list character names as they appear in on-screen credits, i.e. the end titles cast listing. We make occasional exceptions (...) when the character descriptions in the end titles include spoilers"

Can you please correct that please? It is impossible not to see it as you enter on the movie page!

Responses

Champion

 • 

8.5K Messages

 • 

266.8K Points

8 y ago

7.7K Messages

 • 

178.2K Points

Hi, Peter. The IMDb staff's response posts are no longer visible. How convenient. So, that's their probable answer? They will simply close this thread and hide all the response posts? I think. we ought to complain about that very fact. This is one of the kinds of things that makes it difficult to work with/on IMDb, whether it is accidental or on purpose.

Champion

 • 

8.5K Messages

 • 

266.8K Points

This is an eight year old thread. I don't know why the replies in the other old threads are gone, nor do I know what they said.

It is possible that IMDb will provide a new reply to this issue, either in this thread or if a new thread is started.

7.7K Messages

 • 

178.2K Points

To be fair, I suppose, these hidden responses are probably a symptom of how Sprinklr works as distinguished from how GetSatisfaction worked. I don't know why the team who configured the forum in its Sprinklr rendition didn't set it up so that closed threads on it better resembled the way they were displayed on GetSatisfaction, since closed threads are not necessarily obsolete. I couldn't be sure whether or not they are intended to be considered obsolete. Maybe I should mention this to Taylor on thread pertaining to the forum platform migration.

6 Messages

 • 

314 Points

3 m ago

It is really a shame that this is still being practiced by IMDb until today...

The information that the "John Harrison" character is "Khan" is a movie spoiler and it shouldn't be in the credits page.

This is a direct violation of IMDb policy and for the last 8 years, no one has fixed this yet.

Employee

 • 

9.7K Messages

 • 

232.7K Points

3 m ago

Hi rafael_levy -

 

As Peter mentioned, there have been previous threads involving this character name issue, however, unfortunately, all the context related to those threads were lost with the recent Sprinklr migration.

 

I personally don't recall the context or decision behind retaining the character name listing, as such I will reach out to the editorial team for further clarity, as soon as I have the relevant information I will update you here.

 

7.7K Messages

 • 

178.2K Points

The migration from GetSatisfaction to Sprinklr was very smooth, but I wish that I could've been smoother with fewer hiccups and lost records.

6 Messages

 • 

314 Points

@Michelle Thanks for looking that up.

As I was following this issue back then, the only argument of IMDb staff was that "this information is not a spoiler" and we will keep listing Khan as the character name since it is mentioned like that in the credits.

IMDb's policy clearly states that these types of character reveals are considered spoilers, as this direct quote from it says:

Ian Hart plays Professor Quirrell in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. You're not supposed to know he's also Voldemort. Ian Holm plays Sir William Gull in From Hell. His character name is not "Jack the Ripper". Those are both supposed to be surprises.

Anyone who has watched Star Trek Into Darkness will agree that John Harrison's reveal of Khan is a surprise. I would dare to say that this secret was one of the biggest character secrets in any franchise with a large fanbase such as Star Trek.

As some images pasted below by a fellow user will show, there are lots of the headlines of the time saying how much JJ Abrams (the director) tried to keep this information a secret from the public.

7.7K Messages

 • 

178.2K Points

The pattern implied by the examples is that spoilers only or mostly are revealed in the last chapter of a movie, like right before or during the final boss fight.

6 Messages

 • 

314 Points

2 m ago

By the way, I just tried to make a "contribution" to the cast page of the movie and explaining the change.


My suggestion was declied with the quick and short answer of "Does not meet contribution guidelines".

7.7K Messages

 • 

178.2K Points

The provided reason for the rejection probably signifies that the IMDb data editors do not consider the character name to be a spoiler, therefore the name as it appears in the credits is to be upheld, and that's assuming that the editors all do indeed understand and follow all of the character naming guidelines. I do, however, agree about it being a spoiler. One thing to consider is that the spoiler seems only a really problem for people who've seen or heard about Ricardo Monteban's portrayals of Khan (e.g. Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn) but aren't familiar at all with Star Trek Into Darkness.

6 Messages

 • 

314 Points

@Karen_P I'm not in the "Never discuss" group. If I was asked that question I would answer 1 or 2 weeks.

However, I believe IMDb credits page to be something completely different than social media. As the name says, it is a "Movie Database". 

If we follow your reasoning, the IMDb Policy that "You're not supposed to know Professor Quirrell is also Voldemort in Harry Potter" shoudn't exist, since the movie is older than Into Darkness and that viewers were "already spoiled"

7.7K Messages

 • 

178.2K Points

Just to note, the case of John Harrison is not on the same level as the cases of Quirinus Quirrell and William Gull, because the Quirrell and Gull essentially go out of their ways to pretend not to be the villain whom the hero seeks to stop, even being somewhat friendly characters. In other words, the revelation of Harrison's identity and purpose doesn't carry a great deal of impact in Star Trek Into Darkness. There is no sense of betrayal accompanying it.