3 ms·
I don't see the problem here. If they allowed anyone to submit a title without any backing from a trusted name or company, or without it already being a working
by ashleyw 16y ago
I don't see the problem here. If they allowed anyone to submit a title without any backing from a trusted name or company, or without it already being a working title, the quality of the site would soon drop off a cliff.
- thenbrent 16y agoI agree. The sentence a few paragraphs in tells a very different story to the headline: IMDb told the team that if a movie is not set up with a production company with a history of theatrically released movies, getting it listed at the early stages of development would not be possible The reasoning didn't have much to do with it being released via bitTorrent only.
- noibl 16y agoZapruder's Other Films is a prolific and highly respected publishing house with a history of feature length theatrical releases[1] as per IMDB's original advice[2]. The problem is that they've stated this (a production history) as the only condition of getting a listing during pre-production and then ignored the fact that the condition was in fact met. [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0891308/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0891308/ [2] http://blog.thetunnelmovie.net/?p=209#more-209 http://blog.thetunnelmovie.net/?p=209#more-209
- jor5 16y agoIMDB requires a theatrical release, e.g. film festival or wider release. It might seem arcane, but the system is human-edited
- bobbyi 16y agoThey list straight-to-DVD releases (e.g., http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120131/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120131/). They even list TV shows.