WGA locked writing credits need correcting: Death Race (2008)

@Giancarlo_Cairella​ What additional clarity are you adding? The original movie is linked as a movie connection. We should just have the onscreen credits as that is how most of these credits are currently listed in IMDb.

@ljdoncel​ 

Everything after the colon should be omitted. It is not part of the onscreen credit. I'm sure the 1975 film is linked by a movie connection.

I would correct Ib Melchiors credit to be "based on the story by".

Hi, adrian:

Everything after the colon should be omitted. It is not part of the onscreen credit. I'm sure the 1975 film is linked by a movie connection.

I agree. But I have also seen that sometimes have been somewhat permissive with the inclusion of information not listed in the credits. For example, Soylent Green (1973) is the latest case I've come across; while the on-screen titles say the following...

...the current title page shows this:

(by the way, it is a bit sad that this additional info -the title of the novel in this case- does not appear on the page that should display the full cast & crew with all the attributes)

I was going to send a correction when I saw this, but after seeing Giancarlo's reply to my post I was hesitating between choosing one of the following two options, and I preferred to wait to know the official position regarding this issue before sending anything.

- Harrison, Harry (I) .... (based upon a novel by) ............................ 2,1,1
vs
- Harrison, Harry (I) .... (based upon a novel by: "Make Room! Make Room!") ... 2,1,1

I would correct Ib Melchiors credit to be "based on the story by".

Yeah, I thought of that option too, but not being 100% sure, I suggested omitting the beginning to preserve the as-seen-on-screen rule; however, you are right that it can be considered an ellipsis and that the "based on the" "is actually there" though concealed.

@ljdoncel​ 

The based upon for literature is somewhat confusing based on what rules (or maybe previous rules) of how source material should be listed. They also removed the literature subsection that would have these items in it.

There are two separate conflicting rules for source material which are in play here:

 The IMDb policy is to list the attribute exactly as it appears on screen e.g. if the writer credit says "screenplay by" on screen then please submit the writer credit with the attribute (screenplay by).

song/play/book/novel/article/etc - The writer is the author of the specified source material. If the title of the source material is different from the title of the production, that should also be specified. For example, Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) is based on the novel Alias Madame Doubtfire; therefore, the attribute for novelist Anne Fine's credit is novel "Alias Madame Doubtfire". Note that we have changed the convention for new credits to quote the title.

The second rule about listing the source material title if it is different from the feature title violates the first rule about listing the credits as shown on screen. What's even more confusing is the example chose. Mrs. Doubtfire's on screen title is shown with the name of the novel listed.  See my corrections to that title here. (And note that the actual credit is different than the one listed in the help which shows the help is somewhat outdated or not actually followed.)

@ljdoncel​ Sorry, I'm not sure what answer you're referring to? The credits were updated as per the on-screen information. No further change is necessary.

Thanks

@Giancarlo

Have you really not read any of the entire conversation Adrian and I have had in this thread? Do you think this is the way to settle a discussion about an policy on which two veteran contributors (four counting Jeorj & Marco) are asking for clarification based on the screenshots that have been posted, the on-screen information that actually is on screen, and what the editors ultimately felt was the correct way to list the data?

I'll reconsider working on the correction of wrong writing credits when I get an answer that doesn't make me long for Jon Reeves. Until them, I'm done...

Thank you very much, Michelle.

I think it is a good decision. Perhaps it would be desirable that this change in policy be reflected in the guidelines, by the way.

However, allowing flexibility in adding data does not mean that such data can be added willy-nilly. Let's remember that IMDb is essentially a database and there should be certain rigor and structure when collecting information. And, certainly, no order or structure is noticeable after Giancarlo's modifications...

Therefore, as I proposed above, I suggest that the credits in Death Race should read as follows:

...and the credits in Soylent Green (1973) should be:

I insist, the previous proposal has four advantages:

1. Partially respects the "as-seen-on-screen rule".
2. Uses well-defined standard occupations (what comes before the colon).
3. Allows to add that extra information about the source material,
4. And, very important, makes that source material be displayed on the full cast & crew pages (currently "Make Room! Make Room!" isn't shown),

Cheers!

@Michelle​ 

But that is almost certainly not the way that the credit is shown on screen in Soylent Green. It's probably "based on the novel by", "based on the novel 'Make Room! Make Room' by".

Are we developing a new policy of naming the source material after the colon? What if the title does not appear in the credits?

Hey, @adrian​ :

You are correct that, according to the "traditional" guideline, the right credit should be (based upon a {the?} novel "Make Room! Make Room!" by), but that policy existed long before changed the way attributes were displayed on full cast & crew pages, where now that info is hidden from view despite being stored internally.

Perhaps it's time to homogenize the way writing credits are saved to other crew credits in the database (and add the source material after the colon), or for IMDb to reconsider the way attributes are displayed on the pages.

@ljdoncel​ 

There used to be a "literature" section for movies. It was for things like articles about the movie but also listed the source material. It would be great to bring back this section for source material.

Hi @adrian​ -

If you feel there is a benefit in resurrecting the Literature feature section on title pages, I encourage you to post this as an Idea within the community so other members can vote and staff can track interest.

@adrian FWIW the type of information previous covered in the literature section can still be added to the corresponding title FAQ with a question: “Upon which literary sources was this title based?” or “Is <title> based upon a book?” or similar. 

For example, see question #2 on https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/faq/

@Michelle​ 

This idea post already exists.

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/restoring-the-literature-section-for-title-pages/611026ce0188e87bcfa3862e

@ljdoncel​ 

Attributes like (based upon "Alias Madame Doubtfire" by) are not hidden.

@Michelle​ 

We fought the deletion of that section years ago. I don't see the point in rehashing it.