We Have Always Lived in the Castle needs better primary image

Why should the IMDb staff override the studio partner or otherwise forward our sound feedback to such a partner, over a matter so insignificant as the one at hand? Is there a precedent for it?

Why should the IMDb staff override the studio partner

If a studio partner does something wrong or something that goes against the guidelines or against what IMDb wants, IMDb staff should override the studio partner. In this particular case, IMDb won't list the poster as the primary image while on almost all other titles that have images, IMDb *does* list the poster. Not very consistent.

Sabotage? No such thing is occurring, and that is a rather serious accusation. Fighting words, very disrespectful. Regardless, I appreciate the answers to the questions. Wonderful.

Thanks for the examples forthehorde. It gives me hope that this particular insignificant issue will get fixed as well and it suggests that even though IMDb is jumping through some hoops for people in the business (people buying their IMDb page, people having their birth name and/or aliases removed), they don't seem to be jumping through this one.

Well, the whole point of Title Scorecard (or other programs of IMDb) is to provide filmmakers some control over the vanity of the title pages about their works. Sometimes, however, those pages are abandoned or at the very least neglected. If an image does not contradict a specific prohibition, which could probably get it removed altogether, why complain about a choice, so to speak, a "choice" that is essentially cosmetic even if it is not aligned with expectations?

@Grayson Thanks for answering, I appreciate it very much.

That being said, being able to buy you're way into a database you wouldn't be able to get in for free is simply wrong. That is one of the points I tried to make in my message upthread. I personally don't have an IMDb page and I shouldn't have one. But if I give IMDb money, I will be able to get a name page and I will also turn up in search results for people with a name similar to mine and thereby cluttering the search results. Are you saying that my journey is interesting to people if I give money to IMDb and not interesting to people if I don't give IMDb money?

IMDb has always said it is a title-based database. So in order for a person to be eligible for a name page, this person should have worked on and/or be credited in a title that IMDb considers eligible. I think it's that simple. Obviously, given the current media/entertainment world with all its (online) platforms, it is sometimes debatable which title should or shouldn't be eligible, but that's a different and more nuanced matter.

(I know about the enormous amount of submissions that make it online without any problem in record time, but this issue is not about (specific) submissions but about policy.)

The option of one being able to buy one's way into the listing often serves a function, though. That's is the case for agents, representatives, managers, executives and publicists, regardless of whether they have any IMDb title pages linked to their IMDb name pages. So, this is not inherently wrong. Where there is a problem is when somebody creates a new claimed IMDb name page through IMDbPro but somehow never winds up being associated/attached (in the context of IMDb records) with any other person, and also not with any company or any title, not even a casting breakdown. Maybe IMDb name pages having certain manners of composition should simply be excluded from the search results of the regular IMDb, outside of the submission interface and IMDbPro.