Author |
Message |
Registered: September 2, 2007 | Posts: 39 |
| Posted: | | | | I've noticed when I graph my collection by first genre about 10% come up as "Television". A friend with a larger collection has a similar proportion.
It would be possible to make a case that Television is not even a genre but I can see that flagging a particular item TV is useful and unless tags are up/downloaded it is difficult to see how you could do this. However, I can see almost no circumstances in which Television should be the first tag given that the tagging order has significance. Some multi-season shows have TV as the first tag only in some seasons and therefore don't sort correctly by genre.
I will be correcting my database locally and locking the changed genre fields. However, contribution rules prohibit simple re-ordering within a category so I can't submit them and TBH I can understand why the reviewers would not want several hundred genre updates so I'm simply submitting an appeal to contributors not to put Television first and to change this if you happen to be updating such a title for some other reason. |
|
Registered: May 9, 2007 | Posts: 1,536 |
| Posted: | | | | Agreed. Locally, I also move Television to last place in genres (same by the way with Classic). | | | Hans |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | You have to understand not everyone sees it the same way as you do. Some of us sees it as it is a Television release first and foremost. So as long as Invelos wants it treated as a genre there is those of us that believe it does indeed belong in the first field as it is a TV release more so then anything else. At this point Invelos seems to want us to look at Television as a genre... so that is what I do. So personally... without Invelos telling me otherwise... I will always list television first.
Now what would I like to see happen? Give Television/Theatrical/Direct to Video (and whatever else that may be needed) it's own field. So that Television isn't considered a genre at all. That in my opinion would be ideal. And hopefully something we will see before too long. | | | Pete |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 1,380 |
| Posted: | | | | I don't even use the genre name Television. |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,635 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Staid S Barr: Quote: Agreed. Locally, I also move Television to last place in genres (same by the way with Classic). | | | Hal |
|
Registered: May 9, 2007 | Posts: 1,536 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote: You have to understand not everyone sees it the same way as you do. Some of us sees it as it is a Television release first and foremost. So as long as Invelos wants it treated as a genre there is those of us that believe it does indeed belong in the first field as it is a TV release more so then anything else. At this point Invelos seems to want us to look at Television as a genre... so that is what I do. So personally... without Invelos telling me otherwise... I will always list television first.
Now what would I like to see happen? Give Television/Theatrical/Direct to Video (and whatever else that may be needed) it's own field. So that Television isn't considered a genre at all. That in my opinion would be ideal. And hopefully something we will see before too long. I can see your point for televison series (which I put in a separate collection, so the genre issue does not arise much). But so called television movies are movies first, and made for television second. A movie may be made for the scrap heap, and still be a movie before it is a piece of scrap. Although... now I start to think about that... | | | Hans | | | Last edited: by Staid S Barr |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | I don't see it that way. If it is a Television Movie (the way I always seen it written)... it is still IMHO Television first and foremost. | | | Pete |
|
Registered: May 9, 2007 | Posts: 1,536 |
| Posted: | | | | If you have a movie (on DVD, which we are collecting after all), do you need to research whether it was made for the theater, for TV, directly for DVD, or otherwise? Or is that somehow immediately obvious? | | | Hans |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | like anything else... some I already know. Some I have to look up. But usually what I need to determine is if it is a TV Movie or Direct to DVD. It is a rare thing if I don't already know it is a theatrical release. | | | Pete |
|
Registered: May 9, 2007 | Posts: 1,536 |
| Posted: | | | | I see you point there. For one thing, theatrical releases are often announced with some fanfare and some time in advance. But there is no reason why a made for DVD movie would not be shown on TV as well, "Luckily" we don't have a genre "DVD movie", which some contributors might then be tempted to check always. | | | Hans |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,819 |
| Posted: | | | | I'm with Pete on this one. I always put Television in first place in my genres, largely because I want to know how many tv shows/films I have in my collection; but also because I think it is correct from an accuracy point of view.
This discussion is why genres are considered so subjective and, in my opinion, should be a local-only field. |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | Yeah... I never change what is already listed on a DVD... I just keep my changes local. But when it comes to creating new profiles I always use Television... and always in the first genre field. | | | Pete |
|
Registered: May 26, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,879 |
| Posted: | | | | Fortunately when you change a profile genres in your local, it automatically locks that field.
In my local I have moved television to a lower slot, as I do with any of (what I consider) format type genres (animation, anime, musical). In my opinion there are "primary" genres, "secondary" genres and "format" genres. And for me, the format genres go last.
But I never submit those sorts of changes. Genre's too subjective (as we see above).
I'm with Pete though, a new field to indicate release (television, theatre, direct-to-video) would be great. You would have to be able to filter with it for it to be of use, though. | | | If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -- Thorin Oakenshield |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | absolutely... you would definitely have to be able to filter on it to be of any use at all. | | | Pete |
|
Registered: June 21, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,621 |
| Posted: | | | | Made for TV movies are made different, with commercial breaks in mind and content that can aired, so they are different than real or DTV (or cable even) movies. Quoting Staid S Barr: Quote: If you have a movie (on DVD, which we are collecting after all), do you need to research whether it was made for the theater, for TV, directly for DVD, or otherwise? Or is that somehow immediately obvious? It's not always obvious as to what is or isn't TV. Dead giveaways are network names in the studio credits, no full cast list in end credits (main stars usually won't have roles, just their names in opening credits. Co-stars will be in end, usually under "also starring" banners). IMDB is actaully pretty good at tagging TV or not, but always double check with TV.com or just google search and you can find out pretty quick. |
|
Registered: December 10, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 3,004 |
| Posted: | | | | Also, for anything made from about 1957-1994, aspect ratio is a good indicator. Made-for-TV stuff will be 4:3 and theatrical will be wider. |
|